Hmm. Having been on the receiving end of some pointed comments about the one deathfic that I wrote, may I put in what I hope are two cents worth of gentle comments?
Not everybody likes deathfic. Of course, that's a painfully obvious statment, but some dislike it more than others. Me, personally, I wouldn't want to write or read deathfic exclusively. And I really don't care for deathfics where the death of the victim is meaningless.
But I asked in a post in another thread, "What makes a story a deathfic?" and never got a direct response. But I think, after reading all the responses from others in this and in other threads, I've come up with a definition. It's subjective, not definitive, but it seems to encompass the viewpoints I've seen posted.
Deathfic is where someone you don't want to die dies.
In the majority of the deathfics on this board, Lois is the one whose death is most vehemently protested. Case in point: "Gone the Rainbow" by Catharine Bruce, posted on June 26 of this year, elicited some feedback with tears on it (mine included), but no posts containing accusations of anti-Clark bias, no biting comments about her being anti-male, no sarcasm or personal critisism, nothing but praise. So I must conclude that stories where Clark dies are okay, but stories where Lois dies are somehow very, very bad.
(Not at all incidentally, I consider Catharine's story superior to anything I've written for FOLCdom. My personal opinion, not to be taken as fact, and no one is urged to consider this as a suggestion to convert to my viewpoint.)
Death is a tragedy. Death is quite final (unless you're a popular soap opera star). Death is noble only if that death produces some lasting positive effect for other people, as in "Gone the Rainbow," where Clark stopped Zod from becoming a tyrant over all of Earth at the cost of his own life. Protests against Lois dying but not against Clark dying are inherently unequal, because when the passion spent defending Lois against death isn't matched by equal passion defending Clark against death, it betrays that person's bias.
But we can only know this if person A clobbers the latest Lois deathfic and praises the latest Clark deathfic. Even then, because Clark is inherently harder to kill than Lois, believable plots where Clark dies are going to be fewer and farther between, so unless person A makes it clear that he or she is attacking the Lois deathfic simply because it's a Lois deathfic, we can't really know what's going on in person A's mind.
In my humble opinion, it all boils down to this: if you don't like deathfic, don't read it.
There are stories in the archive towards which I do not gravitate for various reasons. I am confident that everyone reading these words must confess to the same thing: a personal bias either towards or away from a particular genre or even a specific style of writing. There shouldn't be a problem with this, people. We're all different, and we don't all like the same things. And that's the way it should be, because we're all different people.
The only problem I have is when someone clobbers a writer for writing about a specific subject. If someone were to write about Lois having had an abortion when she was twenty, for example, that would elicit different reactions from different readers. And if the story is constructed in a believeable and reasonable fashion, it could stimulate a reasoned discussion about the practice of abortion, both pro and con.
But if someone gives feedback blasting the author simply for bringing up the subject, there are a number of negative results possible. One, that particular author might be discouraged from writing anything more at all. Two, other authors might be discouraged from writing stories with similar themes. Three, we all lose out because we've censored a theme or a subject or even a writer.
As a writer, I can handle someone telling me "I don't like the way you handled that subject." I hope I don't get that kind of response, but at least it's a response. And it's perfectly valid, because I cannot possibly dictate any other person's response. But if someone tells me "You shouldn't write about this theme," that's not valid. That borders on censorship, and that's not what we're here for.
As long as the story and the content are within the stated boundaries of the boards, then what's the problem? If you don't like the story or the manner of the telling or the subject or the writer, just don't read the story. I consider that to be a perfectly valid response, too. Don't attack the writer. Don't attack the genre. Don't attack others who disagree with you. Just don't read the story if you can't refrain from attacking, or at least don't attack the author publicly. (A personal message or e-mail would be appropriate, I think, as long as it's not a personal attack. Who knows? It might generate a reasoned discussion.)
Can't we all just get along? I know I'd like to.
