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

[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."