We’re not playing Scrabble here; anyone Eliezer’s pissed off with the last few chapters isn’t going to suddenly feel retroactively fine about them
Of course not. But that doesn’t mean they can correctly accuse Eliezer of doing what has been claimed. The moment someone pattern matches to “it’s a fridging”, confirmation bias is bound to take over, and it would be an exceptional person who could undo that matching after the fact.
Are there things Eliezer could’ve done (prior to Hermione’s death) to draw a clearer connection to her arc? Yes, plenty, and I’ve posted an idea or two myself. But the connection is there, even if lots of us missed it on first reading.
Whether people feel it’s a fridging, or functionally equivalent to one, isn’t just relevant; it’s the only thing that’s relevant in this particular context.
It’s not relevant to Eliezer, since he has not actually done what he was accused of doing: i.e., treating females in the story as if their main purpose is to provide motivation for the men.
If the accusation were reduced to “your story made me feel bad” (as you seem to be implying it should), then I doubt Eliezer would’ve bothered to respond. Just because somebody feels bad doesn’t mean Eliezer is bad or has done a bad thing.
It’s not relevant to Eliezer, since he has not actually done what he was accused of doing: i.e., treating females in the story as if their main purpose is to provide motivation for the men.
You are a writer. You’ve written a story which you believe instantiates concept P; you’re aware of a related concept Q, which is considered harmful, but you believe you’re avoiding it. On publication, an unexpectedly large group of people get upset over your plot because by their lights it’s indeed an example of concept Q, despite your precautions. Isn’t this evidence for expanding your definition of Q to include portions of P, at least for the purpose of avoiding pissed-off fans? I’ve been thinking of this as pretty basic Human’s Guide to Words stuff.
It seems to me like if people become upset in the middle of a history book, and then complain why the author let Nazis win the war. As opposed to reading the next chapter to see they actually lost.
I was not aware of Women in Refrigerators as a trope at the time I wrote that chapter, let alone at the time the outcome of Hermione’s meeting with the troll was determined as part of the plot—which was the instant I thought ‘What happens with the troll?’ back when the fic was being formed, insofar as I’d read that scene a dozen times in a dozen fanfictions and nobody ever gets hurt. That event was one of the primordial ingredients of HPMOR, and canon!Hermione is the troll’s target in canon, and that is the true causal origin, period.
With respect, I don’t think your reply actually answers the parent at all? He didn’t posit that you were aware of the WiR trope or wrote an instantiation of same deliberately.
On the contrary, he asks what it would take to make you consider that you had inadvertently conformed to “Q” [WiR], despite your intention to write “P,” something completely different.
EDITED: I’m sorry, on re-read he did posit awareness of WiR. I would suggest the point stands even if you had been unaware.
Isn’t this evidence for expanding your definition of Q to include portions of P, at least for the purpose of avoiding pissed-off fans?
It is also (similarly weak) evidence that it may be useful to update Z, the set of desired fans, such that it excludes those who execute behaviour Y. The act of using social-political attacks to attempt to modify your author-tract from one evangelising a rationality ideology to one evangelising some other ideology isn’t one that must necessarily respond to with compliance.
The act of using social-political attacks to attempt to modify your author-tract from one evangelising a rationality ideology to one evangelising some other ideology isn’t one that must necessarily respond to with compliance.
Or respond to at all, when any kind of response will further elevate the perceived importance of the issue, especially when attention to the topic is further incentivized by the author through him discouraging the reading of his response. Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. Alas, there seems to be something about “PR-savvy” which bars general competency from seeping through to it. Score one for the mindkillers.
The act of using social-political attacks to attempt to modify your author-tract from one evangelising a rationality ideology to one evangelising some other ideology isn’t one that must necessarily respond to with compliance.
This presumes that the complaints and concerns in question are asking for something like “Harry Potter and the Methods of Feminism.” Having concerns about something is not the same as wanting to turn it into a feminist tract.
Of course not. But that doesn’t mean they can correctly accuse Eliezer of doing what has been claimed. The moment someone pattern matches to “it’s a fridging”, confirmation bias is bound to take over, and it would be an exceptional person who could undo that matching after the fact.
Are there things Eliezer could’ve done (prior to Hermione’s death) to draw a clearer connection to her arc? Yes, plenty, and I’ve posted an idea or two myself. But the connection is there, even if lots of us missed it on first reading.
It’s not relevant to Eliezer, since he has not actually done what he was accused of doing: i.e., treating females in the story as if their main purpose is to provide motivation for the men.
If the accusation were reduced to “your story made me feel bad” (as you seem to be implying it should), then I doubt Eliezer would’ve bothered to respond. Just because somebody feels bad doesn’t mean Eliezer is bad or has done a bad thing.
You are a writer. You’ve written a story which you believe instantiates concept P; you’re aware of a related concept Q, which is considered harmful, but you believe you’re avoiding it. On publication, an unexpectedly large group of people get upset over your plot because by their lights it’s indeed an example of concept Q, despite your precautions. Isn’t this evidence for expanding your definition of Q to include portions of P, at least for the purpose of avoiding pissed-off fans? I’ve been thinking of this as pretty basic Human’s Guide to Words stuff.
It seems to me like if people become upset in the middle of a history book, and then complain why the author let Nazis win the war. As opposed to reading the next chapter to see they actually lost.
I was not aware of Women in Refrigerators as a trope at the time I wrote that chapter, let alone at the time the outcome of Hermione’s meeting with the troll was determined as part of the plot—which was the instant I thought ‘What happens with the troll?’ back when the fic was being formed, insofar as I’d read that scene a dozen times in a dozen fanfictions and nobody ever gets hurt. That event was one of the primordial ingredients of HPMOR, and canon!Hermione is the troll’s target in canon, and that is the true causal origin, period.
With respect, I don’t think your reply actually answers the parent at all? He didn’t posit that you were aware of the WiR trope or wrote an instantiation of same deliberately.
On the contrary, he asks what it would take to make you consider that you had inadvertently conformed to “Q” [WiR], despite your intention to write “P,” something completely different.
EDITED: I’m sorry, on re-read he did posit awareness of WiR. I would suggest the point stands even if you had been unaware.
It is also (similarly weak) evidence that it may be useful to update Z, the set of desired fans, such that it excludes those who execute behaviour Y. The act of using social-political attacks to attempt to modify your author-tract from one evangelising a rationality ideology to one evangelising some other ideology isn’t one that must necessarily respond to with compliance.
Or respond to at all, when any kind of response will further elevate the perceived importance of the issue, especially when attention to the topic is further incentivized by the author through him discouraging the reading of his response. Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. Alas, there seems to be something about “PR-savvy” which bars general competency from seeping through to it. Score one for the mindkillers.
This presumes that the complaints and concerns in question are asking for something like “Harry Potter and the Methods of Feminism.” Having concerns about something is not the same as wanting to turn it into a feminist tract.