themodawakens ([personal profile] themodawakens) wrote in [community profile] tfa_kink2015-12-19 05:07 pm

DISCUSSION/OFF-TOPIC POST

Use this post for things that are neither prompts nor questions for the mod.

flat view

Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-22 05:16 pm (UTC)(link)
I have to admit, I'm a little annoyed at people throwing links under people's prompts for fic they think would fit the prompt. I'm sure they mean well but idk, if it's on AO3 and under the relevant pairing tags, chances are people who want to read about it have already seen it and would like to read sone thing new.
And in a lot of cases, potential authors see this and think "Oh hey, there already is something for this, no need to write anything" and move on.

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-22 06:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah it's kind of annoying. That being said, I have found good fics that way. I do think it's a bit thread-jacky tho.

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-22 07:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Agree with both of you. You can sometimes find something you missed and it fills the need before you get an actual fill. But it can also discourage an actual fill since someone might not be tempted to write so etching that's too similar to what's been written already. That's why second or more fills are rare exceptions.

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-22 07:46 pm (UTC)(link)
I love them, especially since not everyone has gone through all of ao3, and half the prompts are nearly the same as earlier filled prompts these days anyway. If you don't want a link, put "no RTYIs" in your prompt at the bottom.

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-22 07:48 pm (UTC)(link)
Speaking as a potential author, RTYIs don't discourage me. If the prompt makes me want to write it, I write it.

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-22 11:11 pm (UTC)(link)
+1

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-22 09:07 pm (UTC)(link)
...I once had someone link me to my own fic when I prompted something.

As a prompter I've often already read the fics shared and it feels like a bit of a dismissal.

As an author it feels like more work. If a prompt has had someone link to another story that means I have to go at least skim that other story to make sure I don't write anything too similar.

Personally I'm not a fan of it, but what's worst for me is when someone links to another similar prompt. That's just ???

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-23 03:58 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, the thing is that the assumption should be that the prompter had gone through AO3. But I get it's someone's best intentions though.

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-23 05:44 am (UTC)(link)
Given how many people prompt things that already exist on AO3 or elsewhere on the meme, assuming they've looked through anything at all is a far stretch.

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-23 06:04 am (UTC)(link)
Just because something already exists doesn't mean people don't want more of it. I can read different versions of the same trope or kink a hundred different times and still want more of it. All fanfiction, by its nature, is repetitive anyways.

I mean, I've read every fic of a certain kink that ao3 has in this fandom, written two, and still would post a prompt for that kink here.

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-23 07:34 am (UTC)(link)
A lot of the prompts are on AO3 in some capacity but probably not in the way some OPs like since common tropes can be done in so many different ways. This is why I like the "+ idea here" concept because it kinda shows how that prompt is different than the run of the mill trip / idea.

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-23 08:39 am (UTC)(link)
I go through AO3 and I will still take all the RTYIs. I want to know what other people have liked that I probably missed.

Re: Not a fill but have you read (...)?

(Anonymous) 2016-04-26 12:50 am (UTC)(link)
Exactly this!