I recently posted "Why I Hate the Crappies, Too" to the Daria Fandom Blog, and Kara Wild, the creator of the "Crappies", has asked for blog space for a full rebuttal. Without further ado, Ms. Kara Wild:

Why the CRAPPIES Are Necessary (Or: Why I Like the CRAPPIES)

It's useless to talk about the CRAPPIES without mentioning the Booties. Had Cincgreen posted my entire message, you would have read that I started the CRAPPIES because I find the Booties to be offensive and unnecessary.

It's not that they're uniquely bad, and it's not that I doubt the intentions or ability of the overseers (if I did, I wouldn't have asked them to oversee the CRAPPIES), but that I find all contests that rank fanfics according to which is "the best" to be offensive. Why?

1) Because there's no way you can get the opinions of the broad group of Daria fans who read fanfiction, since many of them don't frequent the boards regularly, or any forum (alt.tv.daria, #daria+, AIM, etc.). Therefore, the results present a false impression that they are a fan consensus, when in fact they are the decisions of just a small group that, for all we know, could be groupies of a particular author and inclined to vote for him and her even if the work consisted of a food smear on a page. Regardless of whether this has happened in the Booties, there are no safeguards to prevent it from happening.

2) Because good fan authors don't need any more acclaim. The vast majority who win "best" or "favorite" awards are well known and have already received a lot of acclaim, as Cincgreen noted in his essay. Fanfics from these authors aren't greeted with, "Wow, that was a high-quality fanfic. Good job!" They are greeted with "That was AWESOME! The best thing I've ever read! You are the best writer EVER!" Why puff them up further by awarding them top prizes in a contest as well?

3) There are other ways to reward someone who is a good writer, but not very well known. For instance, I spotlighted E.A. Smith's "Love Labour's Lost" trilogy on the PPMB and from there, E.A. Smith became known not only for his good writing, but for his valuable contributions to fandom. If readers want to show their appreciation, why not write an extensive post about someone's story, or even just send the person an extensive review? I'm sure he or she would cherish that much more than the validation of some anonymous contest voters or ten posts exclaiming "That was SO cool!"

So yes, I don't like the Booties. If they folded tomorrow and no fanfic ranking contest emerged ever again, I would fold up the CRAPPIES for good. However, since the Booties are well liked, this is unlikely to happen. That being the case, I think the CRAPPIES serve as an important balancer. While the Booties, or any "best/favorite" contest, might give the false impression that the author is brilliant, the CRAPPIES bring that author back to earth by reminding him/her that his/her writing has real weaknesses. That keeps the author humble and always trying harder. The CRAPPIES put a damper on the "entourage effect" because even if a bunch of fans voted for their favorite author to win "most grating use of Mary Sue," what would be the result? Could the author honestly say he or she was proud of such an achievement?

Another reason for the CRAPPIES to exist is because fandom culture as a whole is tilted against criticism. While every now and then, you might find that someone has managed to place a critical post amongst the airy or laudatory posts in the latest serial thread, that person is oftentimes a well-established member of fandom with too high a reputation to sustain any real damage from the pushback that follows. You don't see too many new or lesser-known fans making genuine criticisms of a popular story, because what often happens is that 1) no matter how respectfully the fan gives the criticism, he/she will get accused of trying to dictate the tone of the story (never mind that by posting a serial in rough draft form, the author is asking for readers to do just that), when any good fan should be "tolerant" and accept the story exactly as is, and 2) several other fans will mutter that the critic is being a killjoy and "this thread isn't fun anymore." In the absence of an established outlet for criticism, the CRAPPIES have stepped up.

Looking at Cincgreen's reasons behind his dislike of the CRAPPIES, I admit I'm puzzled. He seems to share many of the same concerns that I have about the Booties. Yet Cincgreen likes the Booties, having just displayed the results on his blog. I recall that he based some of his approval of the first annual Booties on the fact that voting was completely anonymous, through an automated system. The pressure of a popular author on his or her "entourage," therefore, could be reduced significantly, since the voters wouldn't have to make their preferences known in an e-mail. However, the Booties voting was different this year. Not only did it take place through e-mail, but it used nearly the exact same voting procedure as the CRAPPIES, whereby voters sent their votes via text message. Even if the votes were unmarked, this was not an iron-clad anonymous system, which means that the Booties were closer in kinship to the Canadibrit awards and other "best of" contests that Cincgreen has disdained.

Moreover, Cingreen's argument strikes me as contradictory. On the one hand, he claims that the CRAPPIES are so silly and weak, the criticisms embodied in them don't have any real impact. On the other hand, he claims that the CRAPPIES are so harsh, they could scar the most sensitive writers, who are too bound by peer pressure to withdraw themselves from consideration. So are the CRAPPIES too weak or too harsh? It seems that they're damned either way.

Cincgreen, to address some of your specific points:

The CRAPPIES consist of a set of jokey categories to which any work can be nominated.

While it's true that the CRAPPIE category titles are silly, to provide some sugar with the medicine, I fail to understand what is "jokey" about the categories themselves. 1) Most overwritten story; 2) most implausible "canon" Daria story; 3) most implausible off-canon Daria story; 4) "fluffiest," most-lightweight story (thus its appeal to the Fashion Club; 5) the story with too much angst; 6) dumbest comedy; 7) most over-the-top psychotic action story; 8) most incomprehensible storyline; 9) story with the most namedropping; 10) the most saccharine story; 11) nastiest visual; 12) the story with the most glaring uses of Mary Sue; 13) most heavy-handed foreshadowing; 14) worst 'shipper; 15) most incomprehensible ending; 16) most out-of-character characters; and 17) the fanfic that most embodies several of these traits.

Most of the categories contain criticisms that I've seen you make about a story at one time or other. But let's say that I decided to create a contest with a harsher, blunter tone, with categories such as "The Worst Story of 2005" -- what would be the result then? Would anyone want to participate? Might not the nomination and voting process get a whole lot nastier? Realizing this in advance, I toned down the contest so that each category represented a poke in the ribs instead of a club over the head. The CRAPPIES aren't meant to say, "You're horrible!" but "You could do better." However, if you feel that a "You're horrible!" contest would be inherently more honest, you're welcome to hold one of your own.

There might indeed be some fans who don't think a nomination to a "Worst Fan Fiction" awards is a laughing matter….Their work is nominated one minute, and not nominated the next, which leads to questions as to "why did so-and-so's work disappear from the list"? This leaves the impression in the community that these people are...oversensitive. Unable to take a joke. You know...killjoys. Probably prudes, too. Not only does a person have to go to some trouble not to be nominated, their reputation ends up sullied as a result of having a nomination revoked, because in 21st Century post-modern life, there is no worse slander than to be accused of not having a sense of humor. You might as well be accused of child molestation.

b) just sit there and take it. Laughing with the jokes, accepting the nomination in "good humor" while at the same time dying a little inside. Yeah, they're laughing on the outside, but at the same time, they withdraw a little. The "community" is damaged somewhat.

I don't know where you get this idea from -- certainly not from me. I'm well aware that there are sensitive people who just don't want the attention, and that's why even last year (though stated on the message boards, not on the main page) I gave people the option to opt out. You would have us believe that no one opted out last year because everyone was too intimidated, but couldn't there be another explanation: They felt that they deserved to be nominated? As for the other authors joking about their nominations, that strikes me as both an acknowledgement of the silliness of the titles and a mild show of embarrassment ("Okay, okay, you got me"). If anything, I would think that an insecure, lesser-known author would take some comfort in seeing that better-known authors could be nominated and take it in stride; it would show said author that 1) his/her writing isn't dreck -- it just needs improvement -- and 2) criticism can be taken well; it doesn't have to be the end of the world. As for the CRAPPIES "damaging" the community -- doesn't that suggest that the community isn't strong if criticisms no sharper than Daria's could make it quiver? I find it rather odd that people drawn to a character like Daria wouldn't expect sharp criticisms to arise within the group every once in a while.

My guess? These works were nominated because someone wanted to tease someone else. "Hey, Joe, I'm going to nominate your work, tee hee!" "Well, go ahead (chuckle)!" And of course, the people who ended up getting nominated were the people for whom the concept of earning a CRAPPIE was patently ridiculous. These tended to be the best writers, the writers who would be most immune to such gnat-straining, the writers for whom a "worst" nomination would be the most difficult to justify, mitigating the possibility of hurt feelings. The awards became a contest in absurdity -- good writers getting bad fanfic awards.

The authors or fans might say that, but I doubt they would do so unless there was some real belief that the author deserved the awards, and the fact that the nominator and the nominee could laugh about it good-naturedly ought to send a signal that, again, these awards don't have to be the end of the world -- just a motivator to improve.

Is it so difficult to believe that there could stories whose superlatives have been over-hyped? Take Titanic: Except for one well-executed computer sequence, it could be on the level of Batman and Robin (a nominee for the Razzies in 1997). If there are stories whose superlatives seem puffed up, shouldn't there be a way for fans to make that known?

Moreover, there's nothing to prevent truly awful works from being nominated and winning. I just don't think any good would come of it. Suppose you had to vote for the winner amongst a line of the most dreadful writers known to fandom, people who couldn't improve even if you outlined their story yourself, yet who are already under the delusion that they are misunderstood geniuses: Would winning a CRAPPIE change them? Or would they use the occasion to either throw a huge tantrum or revel in the attention (and produce more horrors)? If there's anything worse than a good author getting too much attention, it's a bad author.

I suspect that in the end, our arguments will be circular, since we seem to share the same concerns, but have opposite visions for how they can be dealt with. Suffice it to say that if the CRAPPIES became the vanity-fest that Cincgreen believes them to be, I wouldn't hesitate to pull the plug and establish something else in their place. However, as of yet, I see no real evidence that this is happening or that it ever will happen.