Follow TV Tropes

Discussion History Main / FanFicRecommendations

Go To

Changed line(s) 1 from:
I feel like I\'ve drifted pretty far away from the larger point, which is that once we bring in the idea of warning for plot elements because some reader out there might not want to read them, we\'re opening up a big can of worms, since there\'s lots of things a given reader might find squicky or annoying.
to:
I feel like I\\\'ve drifted pretty far away from my larger point, which is that once we bring in the idea of warning for plot elements because some reader out there might not want to read them, we\\\'re opening up a big can of worms, since there\\\'s lots of things a given reader might find squicky or annoying.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
If we\'re going to go there at all (and I think we probably should), then we need to do a much better job of hashing out what a fanfic rec reasonably needs to warn for, rather than just throwing out \
to:
If we\\\'re going to go there at all (and I think we probably should), then we need to do a much better job of hashing out what a fanfic rec reasonably needs to warn for, rather than just throwing out \\\"homosexuality\\\" (why single that out?) and \\\"non-canon,\\\" which is vague and subjective because reader interpretations of canon will often vary wildly, not counting AUs and other blatant, intentional deviations from canon (which I don\\\'t really have a problem with warning for, if people are really concerned it won\\\'t be in the summary.)

(BTW, I\\\'d personally still note the pairings in your hypothetical fic, even though the sex is not the point of the fic. Pairings are a huge deal to a lot of readers, and by noting specific couples you\\\'re warning both for any general squicks the couple might represent to a reader (slash, het, incest, age gap, whatever) and the specific ship itself. A reader might not have a problem with homosexuality, but they might have a big problem with Frasier/Niles.)
Changed line(s) 3 from:
If we\'re going to go there at all (and I think we probably should), then we need to do a much better job of hashing out what a fanfic rec reasonably needs to warn for, rather than just throwing out \
to:
If we\\\'re going to go there at all (and I think we probably should), then we need to do a much better job of hashing out what a fanfic rec reasonably needs to warn for, rather than just throwing out \\\"homosexuality\\\" (why single that out?) and \\\"non-canon,\\\" which is vague and subjective because reader interpretations of canon will often vary wildly, not counting AUs and other blatant, intentional deviations from canon (which I don\\\'t really have a problem with warning for, if people are really concerned it won\\\'t be in the summary.)

(BTW, I\\\'d personally still note the pairings in your hypothetical fic, even though the sex is not the point of the fic. Pairings are a huge deal to a lot of readers, and by noting specific couples you\\\'re warning both for any general squicks the couple might represent to a reader (slash, het, incest, age gap, whatever) and the specific ship itself. A reader might not have a problem with homosexuality, but they might have a big problem with Frasier/Niles.)
Changed line(s) 3 from:
If we\'re going to go there at all (and I think we probably should), then we need to do a much better job of hashing out what a fanfic rec reasonably needs to warn for, rather than just throwing out \
to:
If we\\\'re going to go there at all (and I think we probably should), then we need to do a much better job of hashing out what a fanfic rec reasonably needs to warn for, rather than just throwing out \\\"homosexuality\\\" (why single that out?) and \\\"non-canon,\\\" which is vague and subjective because reader interpretations of canon will often vary wildly, not counting AUs and other blatant, intentional deviations from canon (which I don\\\'t really have a problem with warning for, if people are really concerned it won\\\'t be in the summary.)

(BTW, I\\\'d personally still note the pairings in your hypothetical fic, even though the sex is not the point of the fic. Pairings are a huge deal to a lot of readers, and by noting specific couples you\\\'re warning both for any general squicks the couple might represent to a reader (slash, het, incest, age gap, whatever) and the specific ship itself.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I feel like I\'ve been splitting and drifted pretty far away from the larger point, which is that once we bring in the idea of warning for plot elements because some reader out there might not want to read them, we\'re opening up a big can of worms, since there\'s lots of things a given reader might find squicky or annoying.
to:
I feel like I\\\'ve drifted pretty far away from the larger point, which is that once we bring in the idea of warning for plot elements because some reader out there might not want to read them, we\\\'re opening up a big can of worms, since there\\\'s lots of things a given reader might find squicky or annoying.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
If we\'re going to go there at all (and I think we probably should), then we need to do a much better job of hashing out what a fanfic rec reasonably needs to warn for, rather than just throwing out \
to:
If we\\\'re going to go there at all (and I think we probably should), then we need to do a much better job of hashing out what a fanfic rec reasonably needs to warn for, rather than just throwing out \\\"homosexuality\\\" (why single that out?) and \\\"non-canon,\\\" which is vague and subjective because reader interpretations of \\\"canon\\\" will often vary wildly. Not counting AUs and other blatant, intentional deviations from canon (which I don\\\'t really have a problem with warning for, if people are really concerned it won\\\'t be in the summary.)

(BTW, I\\\'d personally still note the pairings in your hypothetical fic, even though the sex is not the point of the fic. Pairings are a huge deal to a lot of readers, and by noting specific couples you\\\'re warning both for any general squicks the couple might represent to a reader (slash, het, incest, age gap, whatever) and the specific ship itself.)
Changed line(s) 3 from:
...I didn\'t see this, but I can safely assume that those 3 states are ones that don\'t have a Springfield in RealLife?
to:
...I didn\\\'t see this, but can I safely assume that those 3 states are ones that don\\\'t have a Springfield in RealLife?
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report