Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Sorry!

I need to apologize for implying that DJ's latest fic was a Lois deathfic. I started reading the story and decided to check out the ending first, because the title sounded so melancholy. The ending seemed to say, at least the way I read it, that this was most definitely a Lois deathfic. I checked out the beginning, which seemed consistent with the idea of this being a Lois deathfic. But there was no deathfic warning, which made me angry.

Well, my bad. DJ's story isn't a deathfic. I didn't realize that since I couldn't bring myself to read the story. I jumped to conclusions, and I'm sorry about that.

Those of you who plan to write a Lois deathfic, though... please, please, please post a deathfic warning.

Ann

I know we've gone through this more than once, but just to make it clear once again - a deathfic warning is not mandatory on this forum.

Authors may, if they so choose, be extra nice and put a deathfic warning at the start of their story in order to respect the feelings of those who don't like the genre.

However, it is just that. Their choice. Some authors don't like warnings because it may spoil a surprise ending. Others just plain don't believe in them.

And if an author doesn't want to use a warning, there's no requirement for them to do so.

Now, we can go through yet another thread here on this subject, and round and round in ever decreasing circles on it, (how many times have we had this topic show up now?) but it's not going to make a blind bit of difference. Warnings on this forum are the authors' choice, entirely up to them.

So, let me add my own plea...please, please, please...don't make me bring out that poor dead horse again. It's been beaten enough!

LabRat

Eeeep!

Oh my gosh! I so totally wasn't trying to start anything by writing that story. Ann, I am sorry that you misunderstood my story. And yes, I will admit, LabRat is correct, I didn't post a "deathfic" warning because I didn't personally feel that it applied in this case. This story was written as an inbetween scene for something that actually happened in the series. And the way I wrote the scene I was trying to be ambiguous. If I posted a "deathfic" warning at the beginning, not only would I have spoiled the fic... but because of this very issue of "deathfics" being a touchy issue, I was afraid that some people wouldn't read it if I labeled it a "deathfic". And since it wasn't a deathfic...

Okay but now I'm babbling and going on and so I'll shut up.

-- DJ

umm, "extra nice", eh? Labrat, I'm sure that you didn't mean this to sound as diminishing of both those writers who care about the feelings of their readers as well as those readers who, for all sorts of valid reasons wish to avoid deathfics.

In the interest of balance perhaps you might call those writers who chose not to include a warning as "extra mean"?

I'm not disputing the right of authors to not use a warning. (sorry about that double negative) - I would object to the insertion of "extra mean" as much as to "extra nice.

The difficulty is that the issue involves two competing values - thoughtfulness for one's readers as opposed to the individual need to express oneself. It's a choice made by the author as you say.

My personal reaction? I'm a DJ fan and so I was pleased to see a vignette, feeling comfortable with how she approaches things. (I know that wording is vague ) I trust her. So I was surprised at the ending, although if I had remembered "Bad Brain" I wouldn't have been. That was a huge clue. So in this case for me (one of those wimpy readers with delicate sensibilities ), no need for that warning.

Ann has been up front with an apology and DJ has graciously accepted it as well as explained what she was doing. Issue resolved.

Anyway ...

c. (who is now wondering about Bubbles aka Babbles )

Um, no, I think those who choose not to include a warning would be called "normal" Sorry, but most of us here are grown-ups who take responsibility for our choices in reading. Authors aren't required to explain their stories advance. If they choose to, it can be seen as "extra nice" -- but that by no means implies that to leave the warning off is any kind of mean.

PJ

If you wish to consider them so, you go right ahead, Carol. Whatever floats your boat.


LabRat

lol - Pam, I never said that those who don't use warnings were not "normal" (a loaded word as is "grown-up") or that they *must* put warnings on their stories. You've misunderstood my point At any rate you haven't referred to my argument.
Probably your missing my point is as much my fault for expressing myself poorly.

So I'll try again. I objected to the use of the label "extra nice" when no parallel phrase was used for those who don't use warnings. By not doing that, the phrase sounds patronizing and hence implies that we who appreciate such warnings are out of line for doing so.

I should add that I assumed Labrat was speaking in her Admin capacity when she posted rather than as an ordinary poster stating a personal opinion.

Had Labrat said:
" Authors may, if they so choose put a deathfic warning at the start of their story in order to respect the feelings of those who don't like the genre.

However, it is just that. Their choice. Some authors don't like warnings because it may spoil a surprise ending. Others just plain don't believe in them."
there would have be no imbalance. So the statement is neutral in tone.

Please notice that at no point in my post did I say that such a warning is necessary. In fact, I tried to point out that in this issue you have two different different values in play, both of which are reasonable. Neither one nor the other is more "normal" than the other. And you're right - it is the author's prerogative to decide which of those values is more important where they do conflict. I'd hoped that I felt that way was clear in post too.

What "floats my boat" is balance in the use of language applied to both sides:
Either use "extra nice" on the one hand as well as "extra mean" on the other, or exclude both phrases. The latter, imo, is the way to go and I'd hoped that was clear in my posts.

c.

I'd like to weigh in as one who pretty much makes a living out of being nice. Basically, I'm a professional nice person. And as such, I would dearly love to be known as "Extra Mean" here!

I absolutely, positively disagree with WHAM warnings of any type or flavor.

Though I do worry that the title of my current WiP: The Long, Slow, Pointless Death of Lois Lane may be a bit of a give away...?

(Sorry, Ann!! I kid because I care! )

((And, also, because I'm mean... ))

CC

PS- I've missed this place!

*snicker*

LOL!!

to be followed by the sequel?: The Quick, Agonizing, Pointless Death of Clark Kent Now that would be very nice and so would balance the very mean .

Symmetry! Not so fearful.

But seriously, folks, if you're still reading this and haven't yet read DJ's very touching vignette, then where are your priorities? Eh?

c.

My point, Carol, is that if I generally give my child $2.00 a week for allowance, then it would be "extra nice" of me, one week, to increase it to $3. However, it would not be "mean" at all to keep the allowance where it had been. (Unless you're talking statistics )

"Extra mean," I suppose, would be to swear up and down that nobody's gonna die, and then kill them anyway. Which was always my problem with Tank Endings, actually... but that trend seems to have mostly died out.

PJ

Please don't misunderstand, Pam, I have not said at any point that a writer has no right to chose between withholding a warning or giving a warning. That depends on the individual writer and what s/he values more. As well, readers differ in what they expect from the writers of our fanfic as they do in their interest in different sub-genres, etc.

Instead, I was raising a point about the even-handness of describing the situation and suggesting that we perhaps avoid labeling one side but not the other.

However, I also assure you that I respect your opinion that concern for the reader is of lesser importance. Each person makes that decision for herself, of course.

But, heck, raise the kid's allowance. It would be mean not to do so.

c.

Your kid is only getting a $2.00 allowance, in this day and age? What are they going to do with that? You can't even buy a full gallon of gasoline for $2.00, and that's severely going to limit your child's opportunity to engage in interesting "science" experiments, like testing what happens if they pour the gasoline down a mole tunnel and throw in a match.

lol, Fuzz! I'm not about to suggest that idea to them Technically, it's $2.50/week (they're only 9 and 7) but they have to give 10% off the top to God, and another 10% to savings, so that leaves them with 2 bucks.

It's been interesting -- at the grocery store the other day, Marissa was pleading and begging for me to buy her this cute little story book. I asked her if she wanted to spend *her* money on it... and all of a sudden, she didn't want it that much.

But now I'm *totally* off topic... sorry, y'all! Sarah made me do it! It's All Fuzz's Fault!

PJ

Very smooth! Maybe I'd be a more habitually tithing individual today if that was part of my allowance at any point. :p

JD

Yeah, we were never taught tithing as kids, either. Not sure if my parents tithe. But we started it when we got married, at least, and I'll have to keep that in mind as a good way to teach the kids. Poor Elisabeth. Even if I make allowance a multiple of age (50 cents for every year of age, or something like that), she'd still get nothing yet.

As for the mole tunnel and gasoline, my husband did actually do that as a kid. Apparently it's an exciting way to find out where else the mole tunnel hits the surface--like in a neighbor's yard.

And now we're *really* off-topic. Sorry!

Okay - not to highjack or anything... or go further off topic...

But while I knew our beloved little Meerkat got married, did I just read she's also a MOM?!?!?!

Carol

Since this thread has already been derailed, I'll just chime in here . I don't think $2.50 (or $2.0) is too little for a nine-year-old. What's a nine-year-old going to need tons of money for? When I was that age, I got about the same amount (of course, $2.50 was also worth more back then, so it would be, like, $3.50 today) and I put most of it in my savings account. I got about $15/week in high school (and that included money to buy new clothes). And I didn't die from deprivation.

My parents couldn't afford to give us allowances, and I got by just fine. When I turned 14, I got a part-time job, and saved up for my own car and everything.

I can't remember exactly what I was getting when I was 9. It was either 2 or 5 dollars. I know it went up to 7 or 10 once I got to middle school. Of course, that money was mostly meant for hot lunches at school. I could either use the money on the hot lunch, or pack a lunch and save the money. Which, of course, was then used on soda and candy.