![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The little drummer boy
Jun. 24th, 2007 07:11 pmSo catching up with the weekend papers at last a review of Barbara Gowdy’s new novel Helpless about a paedophile reminded me of the whole still-puttering-on ‘responsible writing’ debate.
The novel throws up many issues. Such dubious territory, for example, should arguably not be navigated in what is essentially entertainment. But, on the other hand, the prose masterpiece that is Lolita would never have been written without considerable boundary-breaking. Helpless, however, is more reminiscent of Stephen King than of Nabokov. There's a strange sense here that Gowdy has both held back and stepped too far. Being propelled through this skilful but unpleasant page-turner leaves the reader with a distinct feeling of being stalked.
It was a perfectly standard broadsheet piece on a book the reviewer found mildly disturbing but not without merit. You could find similarly measured book/TV/movie reviews all over LJ yet expressing the same kind of tempered reservations about a piece of fanfic is nigh on impossible. It can be done but it isn’t *done* or when it is the consequences can be kerfuffles like the one that recently swept SGA fandom on race. So people may feel such reservations but don’t speak them because the default with LJ comments is to take criticism personally. You can try to depersonalise as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
heatherly did by emphasising her expert status but it doesn’t really work. Fandom provides a safe space for writing and for squee and both of those are hard in the other places so it’s good that they exist but it’s not a safe space for criticism or counter speech and that can be problematic. But I’m not sure how it could be otherwise.
( Speaking of squee though I also caught up with the latest Dr. Who )
The novel throws up many issues. Such dubious territory, for example, should arguably not be navigated in what is essentially entertainment. But, on the other hand, the prose masterpiece that is Lolita would never have been written without considerable boundary-breaking. Helpless, however, is more reminiscent of Stephen King than of Nabokov. There's a strange sense here that Gowdy has both held back and stepped too far. Being propelled through this skilful but unpleasant page-turner leaves the reader with a distinct feeling of being stalked.
It was a perfectly standard broadsheet piece on a book the reviewer found mildly disturbing but not without merit. You could find similarly measured book/TV/movie reviews all over LJ yet expressing the same kind of tempered reservations about a piece of fanfic is nigh on impossible. It can be done but it isn’t *done* or when it is the consequences can be kerfuffles like the one that recently swept SGA fandom on race. So people may feel such reservations but don’t speak them because the default with LJ comments is to take criticism personally. You can try to depersonalise as
heatherly did by emphasising her expert status but it doesn’t really work. Fandom provides a safe space for writing and for squee and both of those are hard in the other places so it’s good that they exist but it’s not a safe space for criticism or counter speech and that can be problematic. But I’m not sure how it could be otherwise. ( Speaking of squee though I also caught up with the latest Dr. Who )