LJ Idol -- why I voted as I did

[rm]

Now that this has been posted, I can explain what my decision making process was.

I was the first Gatekeeper to get their vote in. That said, I did, in fact, read every entry twice. If when I went to read the entry a second time, I couldn't remember what it was about until I clicked on it, that was definitely a factor I considered in not voting for someone.

There was at least one entry that I would say was close to technically perfect that I didn't vote for because I couldn't connect to it, and that didn't seem to be an intentional choice. It had a "Reader's Digest" vibe and to me that's not what LJ was about. The "Reader's Digest" vibe was one of my recurrent peeves throughout the season, and I'm glad to see it almost gone, but there still seems to be this tendency of people choosing topics and tones based on what they think they should do, and it makes the writing stilted and a bit "What I Did on My Summer Vacation."

I did vote for several of the "tear jerkers," but I also didn't vote for several of the "tear jerkers." What made the difference? The pieces that weren't actually about "look at this awful thing that happened to me" and were actually about brushes with magic and the burdens of them. I'm not interested in the LJ misery sweepstakes, and was relieved to the degree to which I didn't feel like this game was being played.

Entries I both did and didn't vote for had some consistent problems that drove me insane:

- Credit is due to Jacqueline Carey for reminding me of this way of putting this problem: if you show me a gun in the first act, someone better fire it in the third. Several entries dropped bombs early on that turned out to be tangental to the pieces they were in. The bombs were more interesting than where the pieces ultimately went, and this lack of editorial vision drove me bugfuck. Sometimes, it just seemed sloppy.

- It was often unclear to me why someone was telling the story they were. I didn't know how it benefited me as the reader or them as the teller.

- The converse of the gun problem were people who padded their pieces with paragraphs of utter crap at the beginning that should have just been lopped off because the story clearly started later in the piece.

- Weak endings. Still.

- People who described very ordinary occurrences or personal traits as if these experiences made them a unique snowflake. How you react to the experience and how you tell the experience make you a unique snowflake, but not the experiences. I realize this may seem hypocritical to a lot of you, since so much of my writing is about making the ordinary seem magical, but my point is some people tried this and failed -- some more successfully than others.

- I realize "trigger warnings" are part of the culture of LJ, but they are part of the culture of LJ I find offensive. I didn't make any decisions based on this, but I'm just letting you know, that the second I see them, it's hard for me not to assume that whatever I am about to read is going to come from a place of unredeemed fear or victimization. This was actually not the case with the pieces in question, but that's what you have to overcome for me when you warn.

- While people remained in the competition who I've known online and off for a long time or had interpersonal drama with, that wasn't a factor. The one person I was concerned about my ability to be objective towards left the competition before this round, to my relief.

- There were two pieces I voted for that I actually hated, but each had a turn of phrase in them that was so unspeakably exquisite that they got my vote anyway.

- I will not tell you if I voted for you or not. If you want an actual critique of your piece, post here, and I will give it to you next week after my book is in.

Comments

[spydielives.livejournal.com]

I asked in my own journal... when you have the time. Thanks, although I suspect I am simply one of the slice-of-life people... because I deliberately made that choice.

On second thought, no thank you.

I am proud of my choice (http://spydielives.livejournal.com/1748916.html)... and I do not need the critique.

Thank you for a job well done.

[laurelian.livejournal.com]

I'd actually love to have a critque of my entry for this week. You're an amazing writer and I'd love to get a critical response from you about the free-writings I used for my entry this week.

[heykatie.livejournal.com]

I wasn't particularly happy with my entry, so I'm not expecting praise. But I'd be interested in a critique, if for no other reason than to better myself and to know where my weaknesses are.

[kittenboo.livejournal.com]

interesting, thank you for sharing it with us.

i hate critiques, but am curious what you thought of my piece, so i'll just bite the bullet and say yes to a critique.

[tulip-in-yellow.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to say thanks (whether you did or didn't vote for me) for taking the time to read them all and vote. I imagine there was a bit of pressure when having to vote with such a big cut pending.

[rm.livejournal.com]

It was harder than I thought it would be. I had a list of about 15 right away that were a yes. Coming up with the last five was difficult, and the point at which I became keenly aware of the perceived politics of the thing.

[tulip-in-yellow.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I'm slow. What do you mean the "perceived politics of the thing"?

[rm.livejournal.com]

The season hasn't been without drama.

Add to that people I was judging included someone I had had a very public snit with in my LJ that I still joke about and someone I went to high school with.

[tulip-in-yellow.livejournal.com]

Ah I see, the politics of the game itself rather than the judging aspect. It's ugly in the pit, little lady!

[spydielives.livejournal.com]

Does that mean you based part of your decision not on the writing this week, but personal feelings about various contestants... who you would like to see move on?

This was inappropriate of me. I would delete, but that would also be inappropriate. Feel free, if you wish. It was your criteria, and not my place to judge.

Take care.

[rm.livejournal.com]

If it was a misunderstanding, it wasn't inappropriate, and I apologize for the tone of what's below, but I feel like you were being intentionally obtuse and causing passive aggressive drama in my journal.

As I said IN MY POST the only person I didn't feel I could be neutral towards in a vote had already left the game BEFORE THIS ROUND. Obviously, this couldn't have been you.

My concern about politics, since you seem to insist on finding it unclear was merely that assumptions would be made if certain peoplr did or didn't make it through this round, and that some of those assumptions would be pinned on me, as has obviously happened.

Because of my awareness of political issues, there were people I had to work had not to second guess myself on one way or the other, because I wanted to be sure I was being as fair as possible and not opening myself up to this sort of nonsense.

However, since this is about subjective enjoyment, what I have to say is pretty much irrelevant to the "truth" as there is no such thing as the truth in these cases.

Unless Gary has released the votes (I haven't read my frieds list in a few hours), you don't know if I voted for you or not, and this is exactly why I will not tell people if I voted for them or not, because it doesn't just put me on the spot, it puts the other judges on the spot as people try to deduce what the actual vote numbers were.

[spydielives.livejournal.com]

I was trying to avoid this (thus the crossing out of my comment because I was inappropriate in saying anything at all in the first place).

I have neither read further down, nor has Gary, so far as I know, released any votes. I hope he doesn't. It takes all the fun away.

I make no assumptions either way, nor do I ask for a defense of any decision or critique of my writing. As I changed my first comment above to state, I really am proud of what I wrote; I had my reasons for doing so. Whether any specific gatekeeper liked it/disliked it/believed it worthy to continue would matter only if this were so important to my self-worth that I would take such a slight personally.

Sometimes my mind sees things in writing that are not there, and it takes me a second, third, or fourth look to realize that I am leaping to conclusions. Others see my hedging and backpedaling as passive-aggressive behavior. I am simply trying to put things right. If I insulted you in any way, I am sorry.

Take care.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I was trying to avoid this (thus the crossing out of my comment because I was inappropriate in saying anything at all in the first place).

I don't think you're a stupid person, which is why I have to inherently question why you are so tone-deaf when it comes to how to cause/not cause drama, but so it goes.

I'm more than aware of everyone making me out to be the bad guy in this vote, in part because my post above is so harsh. But I'm pretty sure the fact is that if someone didn't make it through this round at least two people had to not vote for them (not sure, I don't know how the other GateKeepers voted either).

I think it's absurd that I haven't been in the contest for weeks but I'm everyone's bogey man.

While I've been far from the epitome of grace in this whole thing there are lots of people who should probably be embarrassed by their behavior in all this. And I'm not one of them.

[kittenboo.livejournal.com]

no you are not one of them.

i asked gary the other day and he did say that everyone left in the contest had at least 3 votes (out of 4 judges), so you are correct about that.

[superhappytime.livejournal.com]

I didn't think the above post was particularly harsh. Actually, I thought it was cool that you took the time to explain your criteria. In any case, looking at the GR, you're not the only "bogey man."

[welfy.livejournal.com]

I had the same problem with figuring out the last 5. Weird!

[elva-undine.livejournal.com]

I would like a critique also, when you get the chance.

[monkeysugarmama.livejournal.com]

Please, oh please, I would like to submit for a judicial flogging, Mistress RM! As much as they can hurt, critiques help us grow too.

[ladyofthelog.livejournal.com]

Not having read anything related to this in a while:

I don't really understand dislike of trigger warnings, but I was first exposed to them while I was in a community for abuse survivors, and now I use them occasionally if I think that other survivors on my flist might be weirded out by something I'm posting. So they seem pretty value neutral to me. Then again, I don't think I'd post anything publicly that *needed* trigger warnings, if that makes sense.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I think I dislike the phrase the most. Obviously, there are contexts in which you don't want people to be blindsided, but we are Rational Man, not Pavlovian Dogs, and I _hate_ seeing that phrase. I also think it's overused. I know people who use it on anything that acknowledges the existence of the triggering item (i.e., "rape has happened at some point in the world).

[ladyofthelog.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see what you mean.

[kittenboo.livejournal.com]

i did not want to use one in my piece, because i would have rathered people read it without any expectations as to what it was about. But i also know there are many sexual abuse survivors in this game and wanted to give them the option of not reading it, since they didn't have to vote this week.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Yup. Like I said, I think the concept is good, and I accept it as LJ shorthand, but it's one of those things that inflames my nerves and I think people who don't worry about getting "triggered" (whether they fall into a grouping where such things are possible or not) tend to be turned off by them. Like I said, it very much did not affect my vote, but I do remember having to make myself take a deep breath, and not because of the piece's content (that was after).

[n-decisive.livejournal.com]

I'm obviously still getting caught up on what went on while I was sleeping off my illness, so please pardon the late opinion.

Speaking of pardons? I should probably ask for one for what I'm about to say, but I won't. People who don't know me may read insensitivity into my words, but if they take that reaction out, hopefully they'll be able to understand the importance of not being apologetic in this instance.

One of the most important things for a survivor to do is to live their life again. As nice as it would be for it all to just go away, it doesn't, and without being re-exposed to the existence negative behaviors in this world, it's impossible to build up immunity, so to speak.

Having said that, it's hard to decide how to handle such matters in a journaling community. As you know, it can be difficult to accurately anticipate the reactions of others online. To make matters worse, people say and do things via the internet that would rarely fly in a face-to-face situation.

Because of these things, I end up judging on a case-by-case basis, but I definitely prefer warnings to be kept out of the meat of the entry.

[kathrynrose.livejournal.com]

The thing that bugs me about trigger warnings is that they don't specify what is potentially being triggered. I have one friend on my list whose cat is terminally ill with cancer, and I personally warned her ahead of time that she might not want to read it, and the general subject.

Also, I'd love a critique of my entry, when there's time. Thanks.

[lilmissmagic71.livejournal.com]

Thanks much for your time in this... and your strong criteria... I would love a critique if you actually find time... thanks again... I look forward to it!

[minikin.livejournal.com]

I would really appreciate a critique of my piece. Thank you for offering. :)

[suesniffsglue.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing your criteria. It's really interesting to read why all the gatekeepers voted like they did and to try and imagine where my entry fit in. That said, I will pass on the critique but thanks for the offer! Seems like you'll be quite busy with them anyway.

[superhappytime.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what a trigger warning is...I would guess I fell into the group of hated entries that got a vote, but that would have required me to turn a phrase in an eloquent fashion, and I'm not sure that happened...that said, these gatekeeper votes should have to be public record, like congressional votes, to avoid the appearance of impropriety...and so I know who to write nasty filtered posts about in my journal and/or un-friend.

[darkwolf69.livejournal.com]

Brava! Thank you for defending the craft in this venue. :)

[imafarmgirl.livejournal.com]

Thanks for taking the time to be a gate keeper.

Would be interested to hear what you thought of my piece. If you hated it that is okay to say too.

[roina-arwen.livejournal.com]

I would very much like a critique of my piece, which I fear had the "Reader's Digest" vibe that you mentioned. Thanks!

[abbismom.livejournal.com]

I had a gut feeling one of the gatekeepers was you!

[tru2myart.livejournal.com]

I love how diverse the five of us are and yet still very similar. The criteria we used was different emotionally speaking but very parallel technically.

Thank you for sharing this. You've inspired me to open an entry on my journal for this same thing. When I was in Idol I really enjoyed a honest critique.

I added you to my friends list, I hope you don't mind. I love your interests list, I loved your entries for Idol and I've been perusing your journal and it really calls to me. Especially the fact that you fence! That is just so cool! You're the first person I "know" who fences.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Sure, welcome, and thanks for the support. I can be blunt and my departure from the game was a little icky, so I think I've irked the hell out of people for speaking quite as bluntly as I have.

[tru2myart.livejournal.com]

Not to worry, I appreciate a good blunt every once in awhile. Heck, Gary is one of my best friends and he's as blunt as they come.

I never could understand what happened when you left, I just remember being very disappointed that such a good writer was gone so soon. Just consider me one of the many un-irked. :smiles:

[rm.livejournal.com]

I'm not really sure either other than it was common sense strategy if people felt I was a threat. However, there were a pack of five us that we're switching off the leads pretty frequently, so I think it came down to my have a sort of confidence and detachment that probably made me seem more menacing than I was (hey, it works in fencing).

[n-decisive.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I liked the criteria you used.

I've been considering whether or not to ask for a critique. Considering how busy you've been, it seemed like a lot to ask of you. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that a critique isn't exactly what I'm looking for.

When time allows, would you be willing to give me your general opinion of my writing instead? It would mean a lot to me.

Thanks for doing this- the Gatekeeper thing and the critiquing. I don't know if everyone understands how involved and demanding doing such things is, but I know from experience that it can eat your life, and I appreciate your willingness to give up some of what little free time you have.