![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI'll probably regret this post in the morning, then again maybe not. One never knows. About posts that this. One of the many hazards of writing and/or posting on the inter-webs. Some people never regret what they post. I envy that. Of course they don't tend post the silly things or post without editing first, I do. So there is that.
Reading Good Reads discussion threads and ahem Mark Watches review of Smashed (wish I hadn't, although his reaction I saw coming a mile away) this week...made me realize something, no matter where you go on the interwebs to discuss stuff, you will face the same people - no not the same "people" but the same...well posting personas. And dealing with them is a tricky business, particularly if you are like me, not that you are of course (perhaps I should stop using the personal pronoun you? Be safer at any rate), and have a tendency to fall into the same behavioral pattern yourself.
1. Trigger Boy or Trigger Girl - You've met this guy or gal. You may be them. (I was at different points - we are all to a degree, but there are extremes, and the extreme is the person who basically is nothing but one big trigger. The whole show is about them!). You'll be knee deep in a debate about a favorite character, and all of a sudden they tell you that wait - they were raped. Or abused by their ex-boyfriend. Or beaten by their parents. Or witnessed it. Or an evil boss bullied them. And the abuser/rapist/bully bares an uncanny behavioral resemblance to the character and/or relationship you happen to be debating. "This is a trigger for me" - they'll state. Or "You have to understand _____________ relationship reminds me of the abusive relationship I had with my ex. Who (raped/beat/abused) me for (period of time)." Then they will go into graphic detail. (For a recent example of Trigger Boy go to Mark Watches review of Smashed. Pretty much covers it. MARK is the poster child for "Trigger Boy". Trigger Boy/Girl perceives everything through an emotional lense and often relates it all back to their own horrible past. Note in most cases, they are happy now, and the abuse they are discussing is long over. ).
What to do? Back away slowly and do not engage. No good will come of it. You will look like a nasty bitca. And you're discussion successfully derailed. It's no longer objective, it's subjective. And it's emotional.
Although rest assured someone will engage them.
2. The Pedant or Grammar Nerd - Grammar Nerd will hijack your argument by correcting your punctuation, grammar, or syntax. Others may join in. Before long you have an entire discussion about whether your sentence was grammatically correct. Your whole argument is forgotten. And if you post again? You are self-conscious and want to have someone edit every post.
There's a lovely thread on Good Reads that demonstrates this: Effectively Slayed By Grammar Nerds on Good Reads. Read it, it's the most extreme instance of the grammar nerd that I've seen.
Possibly because the thread is about grammatical mistakes in Twilight, so that alone will attract every bored grammar nerd on the site.
How to handle? Politely thank them for correcting your grammar. And ask if they would like to be your personal beta for the duration? You can email all your posts to them so they can personally edit them first.
3. The Holier-than-Thou Culture Police: They like to attack fans for loving controversial characters, relationships, stories, and books. And will disparage anything that appears to them to be misogynistic, sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. From their perspective - all cultural items must be politically correct.
They will often state that a book is offensive to women and shouldn't be published. Or that fans of a character are sick or there's something wrong with them. Often they'll state that what disturbs them most is a fan loves an "obviously" abusive relationship or bad boyfriend and there's a risk this poor deluded soul will seek them out in reality. Another complaint? That the show or book or film is racist, misogynistic, or homophobic. They do not understand how it is possible that people see books or tv shows differently. Obviously this is racist, they will state, and if you can't see it? This is anti-femist! This is offensive to all women! If you can't see it? You are either a fool or racist/anti-feminist or misogynistic too.
How to handle? Do not engage. Back away slowly. No good will come of it.
4. The Culture Vulture: This person considers anything that is not "quality" as they define it - crap and should not be watched or read. They will mock it. They will say how it is beneath them. They will rant about how badly written it is. Filled with grammatical errors. Or it's a bad show.
How to handle? Do not engage. Back away slowly. There's no win here.
5. The Snark: This persona likes to make fun or mock things. They are quick with a one-liner. It's often sarcastic. (I unfortunately am guilty of this, although it is fun.)
And this is often used as either a defense mechanism or it's meant as a joke. There are degrees...though, the extreme version is really nasty and mean - see TWOYP thread for an example. That site attracts a lot of snarks.
How to handle: Don't take them seriously. And don't engage. Or..snark back. Make fun together, keep it light.
6. The Cheerleader - this persona loves everything. Squees about everything. Wants everyone to like them. They are chatty and nice, and often post GIPs. They also cheer on underdogs.
How to handle: Stay positive. Don't make fun of them. And trade GIPs.
7. The Devil's Advocate: They love to argue. They will literally debate anything. You have no idea what their true stance is. They often argue both.
How to handle: Don't get emotional. Stick with rational argument.
8. Emo Girl or Boy: They get emotional over everything. Take everything personally. Can't see sarcasm at all. And will often provide hugs at the end of every post. And are highly empathetic to others. They don't tend to deal with the Snark or Devil's Advocate very well. And are combustible when you put them with Emo Boy or Girl.
How to handle: Difficult. Depends on the situation and who they are up against. In most cases, they are lovable souls. But avoid snarking to them at all costs, and try to keep them away from the Devil's Advocate.
9. The Expert: This person knows EVERYTHING there is to know about the book or show. They will often litter their posts with links, exact dialogue, interview quotes, etc. They know all the writers, titles, dialogue, and can spell the names of every character. They also know everything that happened back stage. (sigh, I unfortunately have fallen under this category - go read my posts). They are detail oriented and feel at times like a human encyclopedia of trivial information. (Actually I think 95% of my flist is like this - geeks seek each other out. I love the Expert.)
How to handle? Probably best to be nice and thankful. Polite corrections only.
10. The Fact Checker: Requests back-up or proof of everything. They will nit-pick your accuracy on facts. If you misquote a writer - they'll tell you. They will ask for links to any interview you provide - as back-up. And often will provide links that show you are wrong.
How to handle? Thank them for the catch. Back away after that. Possibly even correct your post and credit them. Don't fight them - it doesn't end well. I know it is tempting.
11. The Troll: Often spams discussion threads. Breaks the rules of the thread deliberately. Is there to cause trouble.
How to handle: Summarily Ban. (Disclaimer - I've not banned any trolls on lj.)
12. The Trickster Clown: This person just goofs off, everything is a joke to them. They come up with funny posting names, and don't take anything seriously. The internet is just a big sandbox. They will play pranks and tricks. Post nonsense.
How to handle: Have fun with them. Don't take them personally. Don't react.
13. The Great Debator: Not to be confused with internet bully. They want to win the argument and often are aggressive. They don't stop until they win.
How to handle: Just say it's time we agreed to respectfully disagree. They'll back off.
14. The Internet Bully: Bullies people into seeing their point of view. Often has a bunch of groupies. Who they gather up to invade posts. Their aim is to cause a flame war. Often discussions with the internet bully will end in name-calling. They don't give up. They will harass and will stalk. Can come across self-righteous.
How to handle? Summarily ban. And ignore. Ban their friends if they bring them.
15. The Self-Appointed Defender : This is a fan of a writer, show, character, actor, actress - and they feel the need to swoop to this person's or show's aid. If you so much as frown at it - they will be all over you. Attacking you as if you attacked their baby or puppy.
How to handle? Back away slowly. Do not engage. They will bring reinforcements. Just politely state that you view it differently and that you are sorry you offended them.
Finally...on all discussion boards, blogs, etc...you will be at the mercy of The Moderator - this is the person or persons who moderate and often facilitate the discussion, they may own the site. They make the rules. The site or blog is their personality. If they don't own it, they are friends with or employees of the site. Their job is stop flame wars and keep the peace. And they have a tough job.
How to handle? Be their friend. Respect them. Keep in mind they get all the email messages. And that if a flame war breaks out - it's in their home. Don't piss them off. Don't bully them or spoil them. If you post long posts - thank them and ask if it is okay. They have the power to ban or boot your ass off the forum if you don't behave.
Disclaimer: This is purely based on my own experiences on the net. Mileage may vary. And I've seen these personas on every fan discussion board or forum on the net. The key I've found to surviving an internet discussion is politeness, backing away or leaving when you get angry and never posting in anger, staying away from people who make you crazy or angry.
If you get into a heated discussion and you realize it's going to derail...politely state it is time we agree to disagree. Then leave.
With my brother...whenever we argue, I often think, damn, I need the last word. It's stupid. I know. Having the last word doesn't mean you won. It may just mean the other person got tired of arguing with you or bored of the discussion.
Reading Good Reads discussion threads and ahem Mark Watches review of Smashed (wish I hadn't, although his reaction I saw coming a mile away) this week...made me realize something, no matter where you go on the interwebs to discuss stuff, you will face the same people - no not the same "people" but the same...well posting personas. And dealing with them is a tricky business, particularly if you are like me, not that you are of course (perhaps I should stop using the personal pronoun you? Be safer at any rate), and have a tendency to fall into the same behavioral pattern yourself.
1. Trigger Boy or Trigger Girl - You've met this guy or gal. You may be them. (I was at different points - we are all to a degree, but there are extremes, and the extreme is the person who basically is nothing but one big trigger. The whole show is about them!). You'll be knee deep in a debate about a favorite character, and all of a sudden they tell you that wait - they were raped. Or abused by their ex-boyfriend. Or beaten by their parents. Or witnessed it. Or an evil boss bullied them. And the abuser/rapist/bully bares an uncanny behavioral resemblance to the character and/or relationship you happen to be debating. "This is a trigger for me" - they'll state. Or "You have to understand _____________ relationship reminds me of the abusive relationship I had with my ex. Who (raped/beat/abused) me for (period of time)." Then they will go into graphic detail. (For a recent example of Trigger Boy go to Mark Watches review of Smashed. Pretty much covers it. MARK is the poster child for "Trigger Boy". Trigger Boy/Girl perceives everything through an emotional lense and often relates it all back to their own horrible past. Note in most cases, they are happy now, and the abuse they are discussing is long over. ).
What to do? Back away slowly and do not engage. No good will come of it. You will look like a nasty bitca. And you're discussion successfully derailed. It's no longer objective, it's subjective. And it's emotional.
Although rest assured someone will engage them.
2. The Pedant or Grammar Nerd - Grammar Nerd will hijack your argument by correcting your punctuation, grammar, or syntax. Others may join in. Before long you have an entire discussion about whether your sentence was grammatically correct. Your whole argument is forgotten. And if you post again? You are self-conscious and want to have someone edit every post.
There's a lovely thread on Good Reads that demonstrates this: Effectively Slayed By Grammar Nerds on Good Reads. Read it, it's the most extreme instance of the grammar nerd that I've seen.
Possibly because the thread is about grammatical mistakes in Twilight, so that alone will attract every bored grammar nerd on the site.
How to handle? Politely thank them for correcting your grammar. And ask if they would like to be your personal beta for the duration? You can email all your posts to them so they can personally edit them first.
3. The Holier-than-Thou Culture Police: They like to attack fans for loving controversial characters, relationships, stories, and books. And will disparage anything that appears to them to be misogynistic, sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. From their perspective - all cultural items must be politically correct.
They will often state that a book is offensive to women and shouldn't be published. Or that fans of a character are sick or there's something wrong with them. Often they'll state that what disturbs them most is a fan loves an "obviously" abusive relationship or bad boyfriend and there's a risk this poor deluded soul will seek them out in reality. Another complaint? That the show or book or film is racist, misogynistic, or homophobic. They do not understand how it is possible that people see books or tv shows differently. Obviously this is racist, they will state, and if you can't see it? This is anti-femist! This is offensive to all women! If you can't see it? You are either a fool or racist/anti-feminist or misogynistic too.
How to handle? Do not engage. Back away slowly. No good will come of it.
4. The Culture Vulture: This person considers anything that is not "quality" as they define it - crap and should not be watched or read. They will mock it. They will say how it is beneath them. They will rant about how badly written it is. Filled with grammatical errors. Or it's a bad show.
How to handle? Do not engage. Back away slowly. There's no win here.
5. The Snark: This persona likes to make fun or mock things. They are quick with a one-liner. It's often sarcastic. (I unfortunately am guilty of this, although it is fun.)
And this is often used as either a defense mechanism or it's meant as a joke. There are degrees...though, the extreme version is really nasty and mean - see TWOYP thread for an example. That site attracts a lot of snarks.
How to handle: Don't take them seriously. And don't engage. Or..snark back. Make fun together, keep it light.
6. The Cheerleader - this persona loves everything. Squees about everything. Wants everyone to like them. They are chatty and nice, and often post GIPs. They also cheer on underdogs.
How to handle: Stay positive. Don't make fun of them. And trade GIPs.
7. The Devil's Advocate: They love to argue. They will literally debate anything. You have no idea what their true stance is. They often argue both.
How to handle: Don't get emotional. Stick with rational argument.
8. Emo Girl or Boy: They get emotional over everything. Take everything personally. Can't see sarcasm at all. And will often provide hugs at the end of every post. And are highly empathetic to others. They don't tend to deal with the Snark or Devil's Advocate very well. And are combustible when you put them with Emo Boy or Girl.
How to handle: Difficult. Depends on the situation and who they are up against. In most cases, they are lovable souls. But avoid snarking to them at all costs, and try to keep them away from the Devil's Advocate.
9. The Expert: This person knows EVERYTHING there is to know about the book or show. They will often litter their posts with links, exact dialogue, interview quotes, etc. They know all the writers, titles, dialogue, and can spell the names of every character. They also know everything that happened back stage. (sigh, I unfortunately have fallen under this category - go read my posts). They are detail oriented and feel at times like a human encyclopedia of trivial information. (Actually I think 95% of my flist is like this - geeks seek each other out. I love the Expert.)
How to handle? Probably best to be nice and thankful. Polite corrections only.
10. The Fact Checker: Requests back-up or proof of everything. They will nit-pick your accuracy on facts. If you misquote a writer - they'll tell you. They will ask for links to any interview you provide - as back-up. And often will provide links that show you are wrong.
How to handle? Thank them for the catch. Back away after that. Possibly even correct your post and credit them. Don't fight them - it doesn't end well. I know it is tempting.
11. The Troll: Often spams discussion threads. Breaks the rules of the thread deliberately. Is there to cause trouble.
How to handle: Summarily Ban. (Disclaimer - I've not banned any trolls on lj.)
12. The Trickster Clown: This person just goofs off, everything is a joke to them. They come up with funny posting names, and don't take anything seriously. The internet is just a big sandbox. They will play pranks and tricks. Post nonsense.
How to handle: Have fun with them. Don't take them personally. Don't react.
13. The Great Debator: Not to be confused with internet bully. They want to win the argument and often are aggressive. They don't stop until they win.
How to handle: Just say it's time we agreed to respectfully disagree. They'll back off.
14. The Internet Bully: Bullies people into seeing their point of view. Often has a bunch of groupies. Who they gather up to invade posts. Their aim is to cause a flame war. Often discussions with the internet bully will end in name-calling. They don't give up. They will harass and will stalk. Can come across self-righteous.
How to handle? Summarily ban. And ignore. Ban their friends if they bring them.
15. The Self-Appointed Defender : This is a fan of a writer, show, character, actor, actress - and they feel the need to swoop to this person's or show's aid. If you so much as frown at it - they will be all over you. Attacking you as if you attacked their baby or puppy.
How to handle? Back away slowly. Do not engage. They will bring reinforcements. Just politely state that you view it differently and that you are sorry you offended them.
Finally...on all discussion boards, blogs, etc...you will be at the mercy of The Moderator - this is the person or persons who moderate and often facilitate the discussion, they may own the site. They make the rules. The site or blog is their personality. If they don't own it, they are friends with or employees of the site. Their job is stop flame wars and keep the peace. And they have a tough job.
How to handle? Be their friend. Respect them. Keep in mind they get all the email messages. And that if a flame war breaks out - it's in their home. Don't piss them off. Don't bully them or spoil them. If you post long posts - thank them and ask if it is okay. They have the power to ban or boot your ass off the forum if you don't behave.
Disclaimer: This is purely based on my own experiences on the net. Mileage may vary. And I've seen these personas on every fan discussion board or forum on the net. The key I've found to surviving an internet discussion is politeness, backing away or leaving when you get angry and never posting in anger, staying away from people who make you crazy or angry.
If you get into a heated discussion and you realize it's going to derail...politely state it is time we agree to disagree. Then leave.
With my brother...whenever we argue, I often think, damn, I need the last word. It's stupid. I know. Having the last word doesn't mean you won. It may just mean the other person got tired of arguing with you or bored of the discussion.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 02:17 am (UTC)Frankly, I was rather appalled by the conduct of the mods and admin in this debate. They're the ones supposed to keep the peace and be level-headed, and they were the ones slinging most of the hostility and insults. Not cool, not cool at all.
I think I'm pretty much done with Mark's sites. The nominal enjoyment I get from reading the reviews just isn't worth the hostility and drama, or the unease I get about posting anything there.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 02:50 am (UTC)After I read the Smashed Review (I avoided the comments thread like the plague and have been since the beginning and never post) - I knew exactly what would happen. I actually predicted it when he first started posting on Spike. He reminds me a great deal of a guy that I interacted with on a fan board way back in 2002-2003. This guy was a lot like Mark. So much so, I sometimes wonder if they are one and the same. Trigger Boy big time. He over-identified with Willow/Tara, and saw Spike as his evil ex. You couldn't discuss the show with him. He wasn't rational.
I read the Wrecked review - it's not bad. Which was surprising. So clearly something happened, and Mark figured out that he had to be a bit more careful in his reviews. According to the comments...there were apparently 10 million responses, and most were filtered or deleted. So, I'm guessing, really bad kerfuffle?
Not at all surprised. His review on Smashed was...a perfect example of a Trigger Boy post. And he'd stated various times in earlier posts how he had this horribly abusive relationship in high school or in his early 20s. So yep, Trigger Boy.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 03:19 am (UTC)-Mark, obviously, freaked out about the whole thing in his review
-Several people tried to offer their alternate interpretations; that Buffy was more to blame, or that both Spike and Buffy were responsible for things because the relationship is super messed up. One or two people said that they were surprised Mark didn't identify with Spike more, given his experiences.
-These people were immediately shut down by other people (mostly mods) claiming that this meant they blamed Buffy for Spike ignoring Buffy's boundaries, and anyone trying to defend Spike or Spike's actions was a misogynist and rape apologist. There were a lot of 'When a woman says no she means no!' comments
-Anyone who tried to explain themselves or take a position counter to Mark's was shut down even more violently, with a lot of insults and posting gifs and pictures saying 'STFU and GTFO.' (I saw several posts of a pic of Gollum with the text LEAVE NOW AND NEVER COME BACK.)
-Mark specifically called out and insulted a few of the people, claiming they were dismissing and belittling his experience and it was creepy that they used his life to make a point or defend their position.
-Lots of people got banned.
-Apparently there was crazy drama going down on Tumblr, with people sending rape/death threats on both sides-- I heard random Spike/Buffy shippers on Tumblr got dragged into it.
-Most of the people who got banned gathered on LJ to collectively say "WTF is wrong with these people?" also "Didn't we already have this fandom war?"
-The mods retreated to the Mark Spoils blog and started a thread to "hide from the comments on Markwatches" and basically talk about how awful all of the commenters were and how terrible it all was for Mark. (I lurk there sometimes, which is how I found out about the drama.)
-Also there was more of Mark's "ableism" crap with a few commenters describing Buffy's actions as 'bipolar' and getting reported for using the word.
For the record? None of the comments I saw from those who were banned were really out of line; people were generally making their point reasonably and politely. What they got in return were insults and hostility. There was actually one person who wrote a very nice, disarming comment trying to explain that maybe Mark was overreacting, and Mark straight up told him/her to "get off my site, you MRA piece of shit."
It was a drama storm of epic proportions. I'm still kind of hoping someone more involved and with a better understanding compiles it all up for a fandom_wank report, because holy crap.
I don't understand the half of it myself because I haven't even seen the episodes being discussed: my understanding of S6 is mostly that, well, everything is awful for everybody, and Buffy/Spike is a complicated mess of a relationship. It's a big part of why I've resisted watching the later seasons, but now I'm kind of curious just to see what sparked so much controversy in fandom.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 03:32 am (UTC)So then he comments today in several places about how bitter Spike fans have spoiled him on this event and how it's really upsetting and how terrible it is to be spoiled for something.
The LJ group can't seem to decide if this is a clever ploy to allow him to talk about being spoiled and blame it on someone else, or if he really didn't know and is genuinely upset. I feel like it could go either way, honestly. I do sometimes question Mark's unspoiled status on these big pop-culture shows. I mean, hell, I had never seen an episode of Buffy until a year ago and I still knew Angel was a vampire, Spike was evil but then he became good, also he got a chip in his head, and that Buffy died at the end of one of the seasons. I knew all that going it and it was just from random Internet osmosis. So Mark's "I know nothing" seems to strain belief, even if he did apparently grow up under a rock.
Anyway, it's an interesting little subplot to the whole mess. Mark has apparently put up a big long text post on his most recent Angel review addressing the situation. I don't know that I believe his assertion that he's going to prevent any further Spuffy meltdowns. As far as I understand, S6 is FULL of upsetting and controversial writing, so there's pretty much guaranteed to be some major drama no matter what.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 04:09 am (UTC)Oh I'd definitely agree with them. I've thought this for some time now. And that's not the only thing he's being somewhat dishonest about. I've caught him a few times. He's constantly contradicting himself on things.
And..You can tell what he's doing. Half of his readership is reading him for the unspoiled reactions. But if he's spoiled, half the fun's gone. Heck, I'm losing interest.
Also, there's no way you can be as present as he is on the internet and interact with pop culture geeks and not know things about Buffy. There are people who don't, but not people who are on the internet as much as Mark.
Mark has apparently put up a big long text post on his most recent Angel review addressing the situation. I don't know that I believe his assertion that he's going to prevent any further Spuffy meltdowns. As far as I understand, S6 is FULL of upsetting and controversial writing, so there's pretty much guaranteed to be some major drama no matter what.
LOL! You've no idea. He may be less spoiled than I think, if he believes that he'll be able to prevent that. Because trust me when I state that Smashed is tame in comparison. So is Wrecked. Up-coming? In one episode Buffy beats Spike to a pulp, after he attempts to stop her from turning herself in to the cops for a crime the Trioka framed her for. In another episode, an invisible Buffy gives Spike oral sex, after he attempts to throw her out. And then of course...the big one Seeing Red.
I knew he'd have a problem after I did my poll. The results? 54 % were reading Mark Watches. Of the 54%? 75-100% preferred Spike over Willow and were Spuffy fans.
Now, if Mark were someone like me or you, just blogging, not wanting to sell his work or make money at it...this would not be a problem. But he's doing it for the money. Which means people expect more from him. A higher level of maturity. He can't afford to be Emo/Trigger Boy. He has to be careful. The Buffy fandom is not like the Twilight fandom.
Also, whoo boy, the Spike Wars. People remember them. They split the fandom in half. They were worse than the Comic Book wars. People left the fandom over them. People stopped watching the series. It was nasty. Sort of a much larger and more wide-spread version of the fandom kerfuffle you described on Mark Watches. On 20 different fan sites.
And I haven't even touched on the wars over Willow. In S6, more people hated Willow than Spike. Serious hate. You caught a little bits of it on my recent polls. Xander? Even worse. People despised him. Many Xander fans despised S6.
Buffy? Also got her share of hate.
That was an insane season. But rich in subtext and meta. I loved it. But I also had retreated to a sane and scholarly board, free from many of the personas listed above. Oh there were a few, but you could safely ignore them.
The board I was on was more analytical and less emotional. Mark's problem is he's more emotional and I don't think there's an analytical bone in that boy's body. He's reading the whole thing emotionally - which means he can't see past his own interpretation of it.
What amuses me to no end, is all three of Mark's favorite characters will die horribly and have horrific arcs.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 03:37 am (UTC)But that's partly because the people I'm reading don't read Mark Watches - they stopped a long time ago, because they figured out much as I did that he would not react well to Spuffy and well, been there done that. If you've been in fandom long enough, you can see the signs.
The Spike/Buffy romance in S6 is basically kinky/rough/BDSM sex - which one of the writer's, Marti Noxon, pitched and based on her own college experiences - she'd been in that type of relationship. Except Marti had been in the Spike role from beginning to end. So we have a female writer - writing a male character in the role that she had in reality. It was gender bender of epic proportions.
It's very controversial and I've never seen anyone do anything like it on network tv before. HBO maybe. But not on a network tv show at 8pm. And not in 2001. It was basically the 50 Shades of Grey of its time. Many of the comments people have about 50 Shades of Grey are similar. I was on a thread on Good Reads - which had very similar comments, although extremely polite and far more understanding than what you reported on Mark Watches and Tumblr.
The Spuffy relationship in S6 is what brought me into the fandom. I got obsessed. Because I didn't think they'd ever do it. And how they did it was different.
You'd like Smashed, I think, the bit with the Trioka (Warren, Jonathan, and Andrew) and Spike is actually a sci-fi geek's heaven.
And the sex scene is great - one of the best filmed scenes of the series. Scholars have written lengthy papers on it. And made presentations.
S6 is actually an interesting season. Possibly one of the riskiest seasons ever done on tv. It's insane what they do with the characters and how far they push the envelope.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 03:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 04:11 am (UTC)Mark's reaction to it was insane and over-the-top.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 12:35 pm (UTC)I'm intrigued by S6 because of all this controversy, and because I was interested in where they started going with Spike in S5. I'm not terribly interested in the rest of the plot-- watching people self-destruct isn't really my favorite thing-- but I'm not too attached to any of these characters so maybe it won't be so bad. And I watch True Blood, so it's not like I'm not familiar with writers making sure no one has nice things.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 01:57 pm (UTC)It is surreal. I don't understand Mark. He clearly needs that sort of validation on some level. But he has to know on some level that by doing this he's going to attract stalkers, right?
Some actor, I think it was James Marsters may have been George Clooney, stated that fame is toxic to the human soul. No that was Marsters (who would know), Clooney said it was the Cancer of success.
That's true to a degree. People who crave fame for the fortune they believe it will bring, don't understand the pitfalls of it.
Mark who worries about stalkers unfortunately has gone out of his way to make a safe haven for them on his site and has told them that he will come and visit them and be their best bud (his tours). This guy is groupie/stalker fan's dream come true. Plus he gives them videos of himself.
He's attracting them like flies. They don't have to worry about any one questioning their behavior or sanity. If he keeps doing this, he's going to need to hire a few body guards.
I'm intrigued by S6 because of all this controversy, and because I was interested in where they started going with Spike in S5. I'm not terribly interested in the rest of the plot-- watching people self-destruct isn't really my favorite thing-- but I'm not too attached to any of these characters so maybe it won't be so bad. And I watch True Blood, so it's not like I'm not familiar with writers making sure no one has nice things.
It is sloppily written in places. The production value is poor - but keep in mind they didn't have much money and it was made prior to the advances in CGI and other SFX effects. Also they were on UPN. Which on the plus side?
Had no standards and practices board. Which meant the writers didn't have anyone censoring their content or the parents were not in the room. But on the minus side - there was no one ensuring quality standards either.
What you get is perhaps one of the riskiest seasons of television I've ever seen. They literally through the characters off the cliff. Which made it a painful season for obsessed fans of the series, because if you were emotionally invested in any of these characters....
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 09:08 pm (UTC)Isn't it just? *hee*
But then, Mark jump to the comment and say “HOW IS A MUTUALLY ABUSIVE SEX SCENE HOT??????” (Yes, in all caps lock) when I and the other fellow fan were talking about that.
So I guess this is the case of:
1. Trigger Boy and, 3. The Holier-than-Thou Culture Police?
Am I correct? :p
Then he goes on to tell someone who responded him (saying "different strokes for different folks") that he has a history with abuse and just shared a super personal story about an abusive relationship in his review (therefore, stating "Spuffy sex is hot" is obviously inappropriate) and two other reasons why he has a problem with people who get off on it.
When I saw his comment, I had the urge to tell him, well, NEWSFLASH! I have a long history with abuse too. But that in no way means that I see the show in the same way he does.
That day, Mark went out of his way using his power and position to maximum effect to make us feel like there's something wrong with us if we're not seeing certain aspects of fictional materials in the same way he does.
Unfortunately I don't have the guts to write about my experiences in that community unlike those brave people who shared gut-wrenching personal stories and tried to tell him why they identify with Spike, including three posters who are victims of rape telling him how it's hurtful to be called as “rape apologist” being a Spike fan. And these posts? No response from Mark. I know he can't possibly respond to every post, but he does say he reads every post and after bullying/banning people for accusing them as gross rape apologists (or whatever else), one might think that such comments draws his attention. After all, I don't know how many times Mark repeated with “I just shared a super personal story about an abusive relationship” again and again in order to get his points across.
Now, can he possibly see how other people who also had traumatic and abusive experiences read Spuffy arc differently and, to quote one of those posters, found solace in a fictional story of redemption? I'm not holding my breath after I saw how blatantly he dismissed other's opinions and perspectives.
The worst of it all? He said he does what he does all in the name of “a safe place” for historically marginalized people. The hypocrisy almost slay me.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 10:09 pm (UTC)The internet bully uses a story of personal abuse to bully and/or manipulate you into feeling sympathy for him and agreeing with his point of view. Trigger Boy just is sharing an experience, the bully uses the experience to obtain validation and win. It's highly manipulative. I just saw a book at Barnes & Noble about guerilla marketing on the internet or people who manipulate the media through blogs and discussion forums and news sources to achieve an agenda. The tactics they employ are quite similar to Mark's.
Whether Mark's stories about personal abuse are true or not? I don't know. I've begun to pick up inconsistencies and weird contradictions, along with a tendency to create unnecessary personal melodrama in his posts. His posts are highly manipulative - engineered to obtain an emotional response from the reader. As a result, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe most of what he states.
When I saw his comment, I had the urge to tell him, well, NEWSFLASH! I have a long history with abuse too. But that in no way means that I see the show in the same way he does.
I'm glad you didn't. The internet bully will use your experience against you.
Their experience trumps yours.
Also with Trigger Boy or Girl - if your experience is similar to theirs but you handled it differently or don't have the same trigger or didn't relate in the same way...you'll be fighting. Two diametrically opposed triggers do not work. (Been there done that.)
You can't win against these people. The only thing you can do is disengage.
All their power comes from the interaction, once you leave it and don't return, they lose that power.
Unfortunately I don't have the guts to write about my experiences in that community unlike those brave people who shared gut-wrenching personal stories and tried to tell him why they identify with Spike, including three posters who are victims of rape telling him how it's hurtful to be called as “rape apologist” being a Spike fan. And these posts? No response from Mark.
It's not a safe place to share that type of stuff from what I've seen.
Although I think Mark may be feeling a little bit ashamed - he's definitely defensive. The problem is - this topic right now is at the heart of the culture wars or gender wars. Female sexual fantasy...in particular rough sex/boddice ripper sex/ and rape fantasy or how women handle the concept.
The fights I've seen over 50 Shades of Grey are weirdly similar - my post was actually mostly inspired by that. I missed the whole Mark Watches kerfuffle. Read the review, but didn't know anything went down.
As I kept trying to tell the people over on the 50 Shades of Grey thread - "people perceive things differently. Judging how they perceive things is dumb and a bit self-righteous. So what if they don't see the world the same way you do? Grow up. It's frustrating true, but it is also fascinating and wickedly cool. You don't know why they perceive things the way they do. But if you attack them, don't be surprised if you get a proverbial bloody nose."
no subject
Date: 2012-07-22 02:13 am (UTC)That was the thing that bothered me most about this whole debacle-- the blatant abuse of power by mods and Mark alike. There have been some examples of this before, but everyone *really* got riled up and hostile this time, moreso than the other dramas I've seen there. And for a site that constantly talks about how people in power abuse that power to marginalize others and how that's just awful, the hypocrisy is ridiculous.
And then of course the mods were totally unapologetic about the whole thing, even when people called them out for it. I tried to (very mildly) point out that, you know, their perception of the "safe space" they were fostering was NOT the perception of those outside the community, and they pretty much blew me off with a "Well, those people said terrible hurtful things about me so I don't care what they think." Nevermind that I was speaking about the general perception and not anyone specific. Ugh.
Mark absolutely seems unable to think about things from any perspective but his own, and has no problem sending out the attack dogs on anyone who wants to argue differently. He really is an internet bully.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-22 02:33 am (UTC)The guy worked for Bzzt or something media for a while - which is online marketing.
He knows how to manipulate the media and the internet to meet his needs and drum up attention. It's mainly performance art.
Sigh. Welcome to the Information Age...or Misinformation Age. It's really hard to tell what is true and a lie any more...or valid. So much is media manipulation.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-22 02:46 am (UTC)And there's various people validating that and supporting it.
So it sounds like enabling. They've enabled bad behavior.
I think I'll stop reading the blog. Or if I do, I won't post about it on my journal. He doesn't need any more free advertising from me.
He's one of the many crazy internet bloggers that I can safely ignore. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2012-07-27 12:24 am (UTC)Also, I'm now apparently banned from their little MarkSpoils blog because I... politely pointed out that their perception of creating a 'safe space' is not the perception of many people outside their community? I mean, shortly after I posted that, all my posts started to be immediately deleted by an administrator, so I'm assuming that's what happened. Although they didn't even respond to my comment? It's very surreal.
They clearly seem unable to judge their actions, so not reading the site is probably the best bet. Although I admit I am curious to see if drama explodes over 'Seeing Red.'
no subject
Date: 2012-07-27 01:33 am (UTC)If they banned or deleted you for that reason - they should be ashamed of themselves. And I will continue to mock relentlessly.
Mark Watches is the WORST moderated board I've ever seen and considering how many fan discussion boards I've frequented - that's saying a lot. It's Mark's fault - he sets the tone. He selects the moderators. If they want to see how to do it right - go to the APTOBTVS board which is archived. That is a board which is also a site. The creator is a long time fan, never made any money at it, and has an annotated site with reviews, essays and philosophy.
Actually here's the link: http://www.atpobtvs.com/
She's not a fan of Spuffy and preferred Angel the series and Angel.
But you never knew that really from her discussion board. And her moderators were professional.
If Mark's mod's want to know how it is done - they should read that site's archives. Instead they are copying the TWOPY model - which is a bad idea - that site was known for its flame wars.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2012-07-22 05:25 pm (UTC)This.
Also from the link shadowkat shared below.
It's like he needs to be the special snowflake all the time. He needs to be the biggest victim in the room.
This, too.
What I found the most hurtful of all things Mark did in this debacle, was when other people talked about their interpretations based on their own life experiences pouring their heart out in their posts, not only did he seem to address what they said at all, he also blatantly ignored it. And yet, he has the audacity to complain about others invalidating his experiences.
Mark has inadvertently become his own worst nightmare - the internet bully.
Exactly. I don't know if what he says is his true life stories or not, but in either case, he is just too self-absorbed to see the pain of other people. (If their opinion differ from his that is.)
That community is a filthy place! *spits* And we shall speak of it no more!!
... Oops, I'm sorry for spitting on your journal shadowkat.
*thoroughly cleans it before leaving*
no subject
Date: 2012-07-22 11:41 am (UTC)Yet apparently Mark is all over the place with comments on how abusive the Smashed sex was and complaining about people treating the topic of rape lightly, and yeah there is no way he's not been spoiled for that particular scene for a looong time now. I could see Smashed preparing an unspoiled viewer for an unhealthy relationship of course, but I don't think the attempted rape was signposted clearly at all as early as that. The fight scene portrayed a super-powered Buffy being more than able to handle herself and throw Spike around as an equal, so nothing about that particular scene would point to insisting that Spike was beating up Buffy and let's start getting really sensitive over how people discuss rape.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-22 01:50 pm (UTC)Sure there were fights with the Bangles. But no one knew about the ATTEMPTED rape scene in SR. If you want to see what was going on back then? Visit the ATPO Board archives here:
http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/nov01_p4.html#154
I was on Buffy Cross and Stake spoiler boards which unfortunately don't have saved archives. But I remember no discussion about potential rape until the spoilers were released for Dead Things, and even then? No.
The attempted rape scene came as a shock. The internet exploded. People did not see it coming. Not even the Spikehaters or Spuffyhaters did.
And the conversations regarding Smashed at the time were mainly about Buffy being in charge. I remember critics stating how it was an episode of female empowerment. Scholars with PH.D's wrote and presented papers.
But no, I was on and lurked on 100 sites back then and outside of Bangle specific sites with an agenda - not one mentioned it.
http://www.criticallytouched.com/buffy/6x09_smashed.php
http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/buffy_the_vampire_slayer/smashed.php?page=14
The main thrust of the discussion about then was about sex and whether networks should show it and is rough sex or kinky sex okay, and how dare the hero shag a bad guy. Men raged against it, women loved it.
Mark's reaction to it - indicates that he is spoiled. It's obvious.
Only someone who is spoiled would write the comment he did. If people don't believe he's spoiled? I have a few bridges I can sell them dirt cheap.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-22 05:38 pm (UTC)And now he puts blame on "a very bitter Spike fan". arrgh
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 03:51 am (UTC)But if you think there's a storm now, just wait till he gets to Seeing Red. I doubt there's ever been an episode that controversial on any show. Honestly, it seemed like the whole internet just exploded.
Like you, I'm pretty skeptical of Mark's unspoiled status.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 04:13 am (UTC)Although Dead Things and Entropy were controversial as well.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 11:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 04:31 pm (UTC)Go here:http://www.journalfen.net/community/wank_report/1488.html?thread=8540880#t8540880
They underline my problems with Mark Watches. Which is it is difficult to believe anything he says. Another problem with extreme examples of Trigger Boy or Girl - they will often make up things to get sympathy. They will exaggerate past experiences. Etc.
The people on Fandom Wank are right - there's too many inconsistencies and contradictions in Mark's Posts. The latest is - I had to leave school and support myself and didn't graduate. (I know he did, he said he did in another post and one of his friends said it.) So he basically rewrites his own history on his blog to over-identify with a specific character?
I think he's going to start alienating a lot of people, if he hasn't done so already. Professionally Blogging on the Internet is more difficult than it looks. Neil Gaiman is an expert at it. The man rarely interacts with his readership and he doesn't post when angry or upset.