Anyone remember Fidonet?

Yes! Though I only got on it to get to the Internet. I got online in '87, but I didn't quite realise I was online.

Uh, not that I thought all those other people were in the next room or anything. I just never thought of "online" as a thing.

I remember knowing of fidonet, mostly. Y'all are old.

I sincerely expected criticism about my writing, and some of me as a human (like being described as needy or whiny or a variety of issues I'll cop to...and the reviewer does describe me in those terms which I'm cool with), but I weirdly never expected the subject matter to be criticized as obsolete/archaic.

I'm also sort of floored by the amount of criticism I've seen about the book, by people who haven't read the book.

Uh, not that I thought all those other people were in the next room or anything. I just never thought of "online" as a thing.

One of the first BBSs I was on was The Well. I remember being a little amazed, thinking, "My computer is connected to a computer in San Francisco. I'm using my computer to communicate with other computer users, most of whom are 2000 miles away."

This was in 1991.

I love the term " squishy enthusiasm"!

The whole not-explicitly-articulated-but-still-vaguely-present air of "My fandom is respectable because we're all just madly cerebrating brains in jars!" thing bugged me. Not least because one of the points of the book is that media fannishness isn't really any weirder than, say, sports fannishness. In the eyes of much of the country, Suzi is a dedicated fan and an awesome delightful person (and the girl that many season ticket holders dream of) because she wears a green and yellow wig to A's games and paints her nails green and yellow during the baseball season, but if she went to meet a bunch of us dressed in, say, a prom dress and a black leather jacket and carrying a pointy piece of wood she'd be a wretched loser? Why is one fannishness applauded and beloved and All American and the other punched in the gut and shoved into lockers? Even (just a little) by other fans of the very same media?

I mean, I do understand why, but it bugs me when someone in the fandom (and she is, whether or not she wants to cop to it) tries to make that "Oh, I'm a fan, but not THAT KIND of fan" distinction. It's all very Jane Austen and the heroine of a novel saying shamefacedly, "Oh, it is only a novel!" Who's gonna stick up for fandom if even fandom is embarrassed by fandom?

Except, you know, the k*tt*ns and the Spuffists. They're totally craxy.

I should also add that it appears as though she enjoyed it and said some pretty nice things.

But I'm just stunned at the idea that it's somehow more difficult to find your tribe online now, than it was ten years ago.

Kathy, here.

eta: The above is the thing that's been bugging me. The "Hey, cool book about a quaint old antiquarian online community!" review is here.

I know it was in the early 80s, on my first apple on the noisy modem Ah, those were the days. We ran at BBS in the late 80s. It never seemed odd to me that I would meet people that I knew "online" until recent years.

I'm also sort of floored by the amount of criticism I've seen about the book, by people who haven't read the book.

This can only be a good thing, honestly-- it's not about your book, it's that lots of people have very personal relationships to their boards that no one has written about, really. You're in an untapped market and people are using the book to talk about something they don't get to talk about. There's metafandom, but there's not really metaboards. It's all part of buzz that gets people to pick up the book!

I know it was in the early 80s, on my first apple on the noisy modem Ah, those were the days.

Huh. I got my first "real" computer in 1985. I knew what modems were but I didn't see what the point of having one was.