Slight delay (and CDA aftermath). · 6:17pm Jun 24th, 2013
For those wondering where the next chapter on the main work is, I'm hoping tomorrow or Wednesday. I've been hit with a combination of insomnia and virus: between the two, I haven't attempted to write that much over the last few days because I need my head to be clear for the run.
Yes, I'm aware there are blog reader jokes to be inserted here.
Also, it seems I am now Pony Hitler. I'm not entirely sure what to do with that.
(And the answer is not 'Hey, now you've got a great idea for an avatar!' Incidentally, someone found out the artwork already exists. A link was provided. I have not clicked it. You can't make me.)
As said in the main Comments section, I pretty much knew I was going to offend some people with the CDA. I didn't write the story to offend them -- just that offense was inevitable. In part, that was from the story's nature. And in part, because let's face it, Internet: you can post the most placid and peaceful thing in the world and the next thing you'll hear is "Socialist!" Also, I will now be blasted because I used that word as the example. And then because I just started this sentence with 'and'. It goes down the line from there.
I've been in this boat before, although not for this particular ocean. I'm enough of an Internet veteran (typically anything over four months) to have said something which was pounced on, with part of the intent in the attack to see what I could be prodded into doing. This has been shading the way I've been responding to people here. Because I knew I was going to offend, whether I wanted to or not. And I thought that some of those I'd offended would turn around and try to do it right back.
When I read some of the CDA comments, my thoughts went towards How much of this are things people have actually seen within the work -- and how much are items which are being deliberately distorted to see if a war can be started? I initially tried to reply under the first view. At the point I walked away from the Big Argument in the main commentary thread, I was desperately trying not to head into the second.
Please understand: I am not calling any given poster a troll here, especially one whom I tried to give a reply with some detail. Maybe s/he's truly seeing all these things -- and for an item or two, I was able to perceive where those initial impressions were formed. But it just seemed that I could say 'No, this is what I meant' a thousand times and have them all be ignored. Am I sure I answered all of those points? No, because insomnia. But I do feel like I spoke to a few -- and that the ones I did reply on -- it felt as if they were automatically dismissed. (And yes, that is my perception. I'm aware of the irony.) I tried to say that there were repeat criminals crossing who had done horrible things and no longer got any benefit of the doubt: the response was that ponies would kill innocent children.
That's not debate, it's crevasse. I walked away. Maybe that was the wrong decision -- but getting in what you personally feel is a perfect last word doesn't work in this environment. If someone is determined to see me as Pony Hitler, then they are going to see me as Pony Hitler and there is nothing I can do which will change that.
Or maybe there was something and I didn't see it.
I got the attention of a few writers I like from this. I offended one of them. I do understand how DustTraveller intended The Bit Which Has Been Referenced Too Much. I was amused by it and when I wrote my own scene in question, it came to mind. I certainly didn't mean to offend hir, and in that case, I am sorry I did so. Believe me, I can live with some of the anger I've stirred, especially that which was inevitable -- but to DustTraveller, I am sorry, and that's also partially for dragging hir into this. I'll also likely never have hir as a reader on anything else I do, and owsie. As with Skywriter, s/he was on my gift DVD with The Best Of FIMFic on it -- the one which introduced me to this site and eventually brought me in. So yes, that stings, and we'll never compare notes on our respective perceived darkness of Equestria's past. So it goes.
But -- DustTraveller and Humanist caught onto what would be one of the themes if/when the work is extended: that ponies are flawed, some such as much so as humans. (I'm guessing that got a few people angry all by itself.) Not all the humans in this tale are monsters. There is an innocent arrived for reasons unknown, there is a man who simply wanted to die in a place of beauty, and a woman who is trying to protect Equestria from the other side of the barrier with the only real reward for risking her life being the hope of a safer world and hours spent under guard. There are researchers turned back and their intentions are not stated beyond 'research'. Are there monsters? Yes. There will continue to be monsters among the bipeds. But -- not all. I tried to present some balance -- and will continue to do so.
Yes, this does mean that I do intend to return to the CDA later. The other work does have most of my time, but there are stories I think I want to tell here. And inevitably, they are going to offend. The very next peek in probably will be at the 'zoo' - or as the human inhabitants call it, New Cynosure. (If anyone gets that without benefit of search engine, consider me impressed.) I can feel the downvotes coming from here -- but it's still a story I'd like to tell. I already know that story is going to get heavy downvotes and, since I am Pony Hitler, commentary invocations of darker things. Should that stop me from telling it?
I didn't delete any of the comments made about the CDA, no matter how I might have felt about them. I haven't blocked anyone either. I'm very anti-censorship and also want to see what people are saying because who knows? There may be a legitimate point which I just haven't caught onto yet,and that includes the possibility of such from those who decided children were being shot. But if I had a hope on this, it would be that people would understand I'm trying to display things through a different lens. Weary defenders trying to protect an Equestria under some degree of siege and the mentality which can take over a people in that condition, and so on down the line. But I know I'll never be able to show that to everyone...
...because perspective.
...because Internet.
...because humanity.
*takes brief break for a Twilight pacing circle which does absolutely nothing*
I am nowhere near stupid enough to hold out for universal adoration. I also know that what I wrote here is almost guaranteed to not change a single mind or make anyone think differently about anything for so much as an eyeblink. I know that to some people, I am now Pony Hitler and that will never change.
So as Pony Hitler, I will now invoke my right to sit in the bunker for a while
And tomorrow, I write.
... there was a shitstorm?
*reads the CDA comments*
Huh.
Singling out one of the commenters by name is bad, bad form. This is not the way to graciously walk away from drama. Comment threads are egalitarian. If someone starts reading a discussion in a comment thread they are going to see both sides give their arguments. People who read your blog bost and conclude that the singled out person is an obnoxious troll who unjustly compared you to Hitler, probably won't seek deeper insight into the issue. And you are a writer and a good one. You are going to get more and more watchers as time goes by. The other guy hasn't published anything. This creates a teeny-weeny bit of power imbalance. No Estee, you are the Murdocks.
I went and reread (well, skimmed) the comments under the CDA story and I counted one comment that looked actually hostile towards you specifically, early in the thread (and no, it didn't mention Hitler). Other than that there were people who saw misanthropy and disapproved (me being one of them), and people who approved because they didn't see misanthropy or maybe they did and they liked it? And both groups expressed vague distaste at each other. By Internet standards, this was a fairly tame conversation. You are frustrated that people have misread you but aren't you doing the same to them?
And I recommend acquainting yourself with Hanlon's razor to understand why people who didn't get your intended message aren't evil and trying to stir up shit, and illusion of transparency to understand why they aren't stupid, either.
1167119
". No Estee, you are the Murdocks."
As the line goes, I have been this insulted in my life, but I'm having a hard time remembering exactly when.
ETA: I'm not a trope expert, but would this also qualify for Tomato In The Mirror?
(I'm more than slightly amazed that you risked anything else I might write. To that extent, thank you for the second chance.)
First: while my first reaction when someone claims I have any power on the Internet (especially for this section of it) is to try and avoid going all the way into hysterical laughter, I have taken your advice and edited the blog post to remove any direct name for that one commenter, although I did leave the reference so that people could hopefully still tell what I was taking about.
Second... skim closer. (*sigh* Now I have to read this again... okay, no one edited any of those bits out.) You will find references to and invocations of concentration camps, SS ponies, and Nazi propaganda.
"By Internet standards, this was a fairly tame conversation."
Scary thought, ain't it?
"You are frustrated that people have misread you but aren't you doing the same to them?"
As said in the blog post, I'm aware of the irony in that I'm applying my own perspective here, and I know my perspective isn't necessarily perfect. I could still be silly enough to hope for a small break in the 'Since I wrote this, is there any chance I might know what I was trying to say?' department -- but as already said, Internet.
Hanlon's razor... I'm not saying the -- opposing viewpoint? -- is necessarily malicious or stupid, but that it can be hard not to perceive malice. And going with the other side isn't necessarily much more fair to those on the other end of the debate.
*looks that over*
I truly should have had breakfast before trying to compose that.
I will say that when the references and invocations started flying, I did begin to feel that I was being called evil. That's not easy to stay neutral on.
And as illusion of transparency... I understand what you mean there and that it's a species-wide issue. I hardly claim to be any better in that regard. But again, there is that element of 'I'm trying to explain myself, truly I am, can you give me a few seconds?' Or perhaps 'I honestly listened to you and thought about what you said -- your turn?' I don't expect you to see things my way, but at least give a thought to what my way might be?
Now that feels like pure delusion on my part. Or hope, which is arguably worse.
I haven't been in this kind of -- let's keep using 'debate' -- for a while. I'm out of practice.
*re-sigh*
Must find food.
Hopefully we can all agree that something got stirred...
1167193
We might be having a confusion of conversational genres here.
There is discussion or debate, where participants should make a good faith effort at understanding what the other side is thinking. And in those circumstances argumentum ad Hitlerum is strong evidence of being a dick.
But I consider reader's feedback to be a completely different kind of communication where readers simply report their reaction to the story. Which gives the author an opportunity to learn something new. The author can also ignore this particular reader as a crazy outlier or not part of the target audience and that's fine too. It's your call to make.
But readers don't have a duty to figure out what you were thinking and it doesn't make sense to try and invalidate their reactions. If someone read your story about, say, cute fluffy bunnies hopping around and had visions of concentration camps then that's what actually happened. It's probably safe to ignore but it doesn't make sense to call it wrong. (Okay, it does make sense to call it wrong but in the sense of 'that person is crazy' rather than 'that person violated the rules of polite discourse'
)
And the comments with the Nazi comparisons looked like honest feedback coming from someone who can recognize the distinction between an author, his stories and his characters.
So it all might boil down to some sort of philosophical disagreement about the nature of story comments. Or it might be that it's far easier to preach about staying emotionally detached when you're not the one on the receiving end of nazi analogies. I dunno.
Stirred, but not shaken. And is it wise to give a damn?