I unpubbed some recent comments. I really dislike doing this and I dislike trying to explain it. I read the comments carefully and decided that they came across as clueless.

It's like complaining about a Laurel and Hardy film, "Why would anybody hire those two to do anything?" Because if no one did, there would be no movie.

Authors need space to use the machinery of their genre, at least in public. Private discussions of plot mechanics may be useful and public discussions not attached to a particular story can be illuminating. But genre fiction is genre fiction, the author can break the rules with a good enough reason but for a critic to insist that the rules should be broken is rejection of the idea of genre fiction entirely.

Readers of mysteries centered around private eyes have to accept the premise that the police are incompetent, ineffectual or corrupt, otherwise the story does not work -- there's no need for a private detective if the police can do the job better. No one can be a serious fan of heroic cinema and deconstruct the very idea of a masked vigilante in whispers during a Zorro movie. It's a good way to get Gummi Bears stuck in your hair. When the Killer Bees come on stage, pointing out "It's Elliot Gould in a stupid costume," is irrelevant and rude.

It's rude to the fans of the kind of entertainment that is being presented and it's beyond rude to the author; it comes across as an attempt at demoralization. It's an in-your-face accusation of incompetent writing, well-meaning or not.

Genre writing is genre writing. Bodice-rippers must have bodices to rip. There were at least 1751 dukes in early 19th century England, all of them handsome and in need of lusty but chaste brides. Be willing to believe that for an hour or two or stay away from Regency Romance.

Attacking an example of any genre by pointing out the inconsistencies and contradictions of its conventions is like insisting on criticizing the Bible for its lack of rigorous forensic science and the shallowness of its chemical analytical technique. And it's like hitting the author of the piece with a cold, slimy salamander while exclaiming, "Not a chicken! Not a chicken!"

Yes, a salamander is not a chicken. And yes, everyone who comes to BC to post their TG fiction knows that they are not writing the stuff that is deconstructed in post-graduate dissertations with titles like "Coercive Costuming in the Works of Writers of the American Diaspora, Paris, 1923."

The phrase "willing suspension of disbelief" presupposes willingness to suspend one's disbelief. Without this willingness for a particular genre or sub-genre, why read any example? Why should critics attack the authors of these pieces for the critics' failure to approach the work with charity and comprehension?

There's no defense possible against hostile literary criticism. Cops love their bullet-proof vests because they can save their lives. And they hate them because they don't cover their face and every cop knows that there is a bad guy out there with the minimal smarts to aim for a headshot. Cops can't wear face armor and do their jobs. Genre fiction writers cannot protect themselves against literary criticism that is hostile to their genre.

So, I will continue to remove comments that I judge to be hostile to the very reason BigCloset exists as a friendly place to read, write and discuss TG fiction much as I dislike doing the job.

Hugs,
Erin