Of course new authors make mistakes. And they may even be overlooked by admins. The thing is, if admins fail to see those minor mistakes, it's a sign that the story is good, that the author has serious potential, isnt it?
In most cases, yes. It could also mean that the author was given a list of corrections to make and that the corrections are pending. Or it could mean that I've been hitting the cough syrup a little too hard. :-)
Because you'll only miss those typos/punctuation errors/etc if you totally get caught up in the story, or am I wrong in assuming that? :-)
No, you're not wrong. I know a couple of times I've run across stories that were just so darn good, I had to do them twice because the first time I was too busy reading to actually mark mistakes. :-) There are some damn good writers out there.
I've read quite a few stories on Ash that had a number of spellos or punctuation problems that even I recognised, but I could overlook them for the simple reason that the story was absolutely captivating.
In some cases, writers were given validated status years ago when the archive first started because they were established and they could tell a good story. Over time, the standards became more... well, standard. We actually have an administrator who went through all five books twice (UK and US editions) and gathered a list of cannons spellings.
So in some cases, you may see a story that started out years ago and was not held to the standards we now hold. I think metamuse is going to issue a disclaimer when we get switched over to our new program that stories before such and such a date were held by a different standard. At least I've been begging her to do that. :-) Because if you go back and read some of the really old stories, they're extremely good, but they have mistakes today that we would reject for.
And I'm glad you didn't stay mad. Most people, I think, don't read beyond that paragraph that says "Unfortunately, we are unable..." because a lot of information is given after it. Unless it flat out says that your characterizations are so wildly out of character or that we won't accept a story in which minors are having sex or asking why you're wasting our time with this indicating a major overhaul is needed, these are just grammar or canon our punctuation things that need to be cleared up.
The first chapter I submitted of my first story was sent to Occlumency. savageland was the administrator who handled it and even though my dialogue punctuation was so screwed, she explained what was wrong and how to fix it and told me she enjoyed the story. Well that just blew me away. I semi-expected that not only would it be outright rejected but they might ban me from the site for uploading it. I really try to remember that now, when I'm working the queues and it's a new writer who is obviously struggling with something, but trying. And sometimes I get too busy to do more then send up the standard letter.
But I strongly believe that new authors need to be encouraged because we desperately need them. People drop out, people burn out, people get written out. We need the new blood. Plus, we all started out once ourselves.
Could I get some help getting down off the soapbox? I seem to have a problem doing so myself. :-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-16 10:45 pm (UTC)In most cases, yes. It could also mean that the author was given a list of corrections to make and that the corrections are pending. Or it could mean that I've been hitting the cough syrup a little too hard. :-)
Because you'll only miss those typos/punctuation errors/etc if you totally get caught up in the story, or am I wrong in assuming that? :-)
No, you're not wrong. I know a couple of times I've run across stories that were just so darn good, I had to do them twice because the first time I was too busy reading to actually mark mistakes. :-) There are some damn good writers out there.
I've read quite a few stories on Ash that had a number of spellos or punctuation problems that even I recognised, but I could overlook them for the simple reason that the story was absolutely captivating.
In some cases, writers were given validated status years ago when the archive first started because they were established and they could tell a good story. Over time, the standards became more... well, standard. We actually have an administrator who went through all five books twice (UK and US editions) and gathered a list of cannons spellings.
http://sycophanthex.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=41
So in some cases, you may see a story that started out years ago and was not held to the standards we now hold. I think
And I'm glad you didn't stay mad. Most people, I think, don't read beyond that paragraph that says "Unfortunately, we are unable..." because a lot of information is given after it. Unless it flat out says that your characterizations are so wildly out of character or that we won't accept a story in which minors are having sex or
asking why you're wasting our time with thisindicating a major overhaul is needed, these are just grammar or canon our punctuation things that need to be cleared up.The first chapter I submitted of my first story was sent to Occlumency.
But I strongly believe that new authors need to be encouraged because we desperately need them. People drop out, people burn out, people get written out. We need the new blood. Plus, we all started out once ourselves.
Could I get some help getting down off the soapbox? I seem to have a problem doing so myself. :-)