Enthusiasm & Ethics & Endless Emoting

It started HERE with a manifesto. “The aim of this site is to promote positive reviews of books, movies and comics. There are some writers involved. It’s that simple.”

The site now features several reviews (books, the Star Trek thing) that seem to be supporting the intention of the manifesto – although I do take exception to this line in the ST review by Mark Smith: “For all the people who might complain about the little details or maybe how the story was unbelievable ? nostalgia is getting in the way of your enjoyment of the film.”

Not fair.? If you want to say that YOU didn’t let nostalgia get in the way of your enjoyment, or that SOME folks who nit-picked the film for those reasons are letting it get in their way, you might be making a valid point.

Does this mean that positivism in review necessarily requires negativism about all other reviews that don’t fawningly praise the subject?

Don’t you just love subjective arguments based on subjective premises?? Talk about circle-jerks…

Next, SFSignal conducted one of their Mind Melds on the subject (Q: Why do you think there is an imbalance towards a negative futuristic outlook? How did we get here and how has this affected the genre? Can you give some examples of positive/upbeat ideas in your genre?)- which spewed (unintentional) negativism all about the blogosphere; the promulgators of the manifesto/site were not clear in their declarations? and we all took a trip down the rabbit hole:? some thought that it was a new genre being established, some thought it an attack on that branch of established SF which has been all too negative lately (by who’s yardstick?) and still others focused on negativity in review.

Then, Abigail Nussbaum tackled the subject (it let out a big ‘oof!’ when it hit the ground): (Don’t follow the links in Abigail’s post – yet.)”This, of course, begs quite a few questions, most notably: who are the motherfuckers? You can read some of the puzzled responses to Remic’s statement in the Mind Meld comments, and a more vigorous discussion, with Remic himself and at least one other SFFE contributor in attendance, in the comments to this post by Martin Lewis. What you can’t do is read an entry on SFFE itself titled “Some Confusion,” in which Remic accused Martin and the other commenters on his site of “[hiding] behind their anonymous internet connections,” because, as Alastair Reynolds points out in the Mind Meld comments and as Jeff VanderMeer notes in this post, it was deleted some time last night. In the interim, Remic has responded to further queries with tautologies (“We are out to promote the positive. Some people are out to promote the negative. We don?t do that.”), requests to conduct further discussions in private e-mail, and a refusal to name names (from “Some Confusion”: “I assumed people would make up their own minds as to who I was referring; after all, we all get annoyed by certain things, comments, sites, people, while other stuff goes over our heads”). The closest thing to a straight answer seems to be his response to Reynolds at SF Signal, in which he excuses his decision to delete “Some Confusion” with the headache-inducing claim that “the SFFE site just didn’t seem the right place to having that sort of argument,” and apologizes for the ‘motherfuckers’ comment by saying “Yes, I presented my views badly. Yes, I presented them after a few whiskies.”"

Martin Lewis fortunately provides us with the ORIGINAL mission statement: “Our mission is to celebrate everything positive, funky and exciting in the Fantasy, Science Fiction and Horror Universe! The SFFE is a core platform, a hub of authors who have banded together with the aim of celebrating all that is positive in genre fiction. We aim to make an ethical stand, to do what is right and leave cynicism and negativity at the door. We aim to concentrate on what makes us smile, what entertains us, and what brings light and joy to our SF, fantasy and horror worlds. That?s not to say there is no place for criticism? there?s plenty bad in the world. However, this little digital corner is a place for positive progression. Somewhere you will (hopefully) come if you want to smile and be entertained.”

And points out that some of the member authors are not necessarily known for their warm and fuzzy fiction…

Cheryl Morgan chimed in with an appropriately negative reaction and then

Jeff VanderMeer took up the cudgel er, hammer, and explained to everyone in a humorous and positive manner just exactly who the motherfuckers are: Cue Pogo. THEY is us.

I liked Jeff’s piece so much I did some quick photoshop patchwork and sent him this:

Which I now intend to place at the top of any NEGATIVE reviews I write from now on.? Maybe I’ll do one with the monkey cuddling that creepy laundry soap bear for positive reviews…

Which – now that you’ve spent the day following the threads above – brings us to my take which will be negatively positive – or positively negative – depending upon your own subjective criteria.

When first announced, the Positivism in SF thing seemed to be about promoting positive SF literature.? Like a definition of SF itself, exactly what that means remains squishy around the borders, and depends mightily upon what you are pointing to when you say science fiction and positive.

Any conflict (which I will submit is a necessary element to any and all fiction) can be construed as negative.? If one were to eliminate all negativity from fiction (which would be the only manner in which you could be sure to cover everyone’s personal definition), there would be no story.? All of the characters had a wonderful time, everyone was nice and polite (but what if I think being nice and polite is annoying?) to everyone else, no one got a hangover; the aliens arrived to deliver pizza and refused the tip.? Let’s have sundaes – here’s a pill for the lactose intolerant.

Or maybe they were just referring to the endings of the works in question (which makes more sense seeing as how the members are writers and would recognize the impossibility of eliminating negativity from plot):? maybe all they are saying is that everyone should adopt a John Wayne movie ending (except maybe for The Shootist – that was pretty much a bummer ending, kind of…).

Well, that obviously doesn’t work (once we think about it a bit) so the mission statement changed to some kind of attack on negative reviews.

Which attack, I feel, kind of bespeaks an unfamiliarity with the way things work now, what with the internets and all letting everyone have their say.

Is it possible to believe that a work will be liked by everyone on the planet?? (No. I know at least one person who didn’t like Bambi and that is proof positive that there will always be at least one person amongst umpteen billion who doesn’t like something.)

‘I/we intend to only write positive reviews.’? Ok.? Fine.? (You didn’t need to make a Federal case out of it.)

For my next magic trick I will find and review a novel/movie/tv show that DOESN’T have a single thing wrong with it.? Not one thing wrong.? The PERFECT piece of art.

Oh.? That’s not what you meant by positive review?? You mean you’ll still mention the bad bits in passing?? Hmmm.? That kind of looks like a review of something you liked to me.

Here’s a clue: the person who wrote that bad review READ THE WORK.? Most likley they paid to do so, and you, the author, put another 60 cents in your pocket as a result.

I look at that as a positive. At least in the cash flow department.