Code Of The ‘Ship Reviewer.

[Keith Inc.]

I don’t read too many stories on AFF. A few, but I’m always worried someone else’s work will creep into my own and I’ll be plagiarizing. Still, I do read a few here and there, if the mood strikes me. I usually start with the reviews. Get a glimpse of what others’ opinions were. Sometimes, though, the reviews I read seem disconnected from the story I read. It’s so bad, sometimes, that you want to shake them by the shoulder and ask: What story were YOU reading?

No one’s answered my email inquiries so I’ve been reading more and more reviews and scanning the connected stories. I’ve become convinced that there is a certain fad among some fanfic reviewers. Maybe even a type of fanfic fan. I’m not sure who they are or what they think their group is, but they seem to observe a reviewing code. I believe I have made a tentative start in reverse engineering this reviewer’s code.

The first and most important part of this code: Do not review the story you’re posting a review to.

It was a breakthrough realization. I believe the Shipper Reviewer approaches fanfic as a placeholder for a real story. They review the fanfic in potentia, not in real.

It is, for the SR, enough to know that someone, somewhere, WANTS to write a story of Potter and Malfoy finally realizing their deep needs. The mere fact that someone else wants O’Neill and Carter to fall into each other’s arms, and is willing to post verbage that supports idea is what thrills the SR.

Not everyone has the time or the skills to fully explore this incredibly necessary character development, but that doesn’t bother the SR. They ignore the story and congratulate the author on venturing into such territory in the first place.

With that article grasped, one can understand the reviews better. The second part of the code seems to be along the lines of: The Review is not about the story, but about You.

Not to be taken as a boast, the SR doesn’t usually fill the page with words about what they would do with the story. Rather, they must convey to the Review Readership that this story, no matter how hamfisted, is merely the oyster that secrets the pearl of the perfect fictional pairing. And that the SR has identified this pairing as the ultimate expression of human endeavors in art.

You wrote this, they imply, but _I_ approve it. So be of good cheer. I say so. To the accomplished SR, a well-written summary is sufficient for their purposes. Unfortunately for them, so many of the authors in their chosen demographics are pushing the edge of creativity when they write: I suck at summaries, read inside.

So. If we’re not really writing about the story, then there is no need to write story details in the review. The perfect SR review is for the ideal behind the story.

Thus, once the SR has identified the story elements that are necessary for a story to receive their approval, they can craft the perfect, standard, all encompassing and recyclable review.

With time, they will tighten the prose to a universal ‘ship review text. Vague and unspecific wording that nevertheless includes sincere appreciation is not the SR’s failing, but rather the acme of their reviewing art.

And of course, the review must start on a positive note, pass through at least one high point and end on a positive note.

One doesn’t wish to deter future efforts to highlight one’s favorite romantic couple… Or graphic coupling. Be sure that other people, mean people, will come out of the woodwork. Meanies will not see the potential of the story, but say things about it all being one continuous sentence, or the apostrophes being scattershot.

Or complain about the disconcerting dependence on spellchecker which introduced an entirely inappropriate word to what was an otherwise lovingly choreographed anal rape scene.

Penetration with a poker is an entirely different image than penetration with a porker, for example.

Yet these base details have no bearing upon the idyllic story that was attempted, the Avatar bestiality Mardi Gras that the romantically enlightened wish to experience as vividly as possible.

These are the SRs that uplift creativity, not the miserable, text-stifled readers who cry ‘For the love of GOD, Montressor! A BETA! Use a BETA!’

These are all I have firmly identified. There may be more. I’m not sure I have it in me to continue this exploration but I feel there is much there to be delved in the name of the entire review system.