Reviewing stories and sockpuppets

[lady_karelia]

I've written 600 words today, so don't give me glares, okay?

Lately, whenever I've felt the need to procrastinate and couldn't find a story to get sucked into, I took to reading reviews of stories by new authors. And I noticed that those who leave a not so positive review are usually the ones who don't have stories on either Ashwinder or The Petulant Poetess. And I'm not talking about constructive criticism here, either. I mean basically bitch arse highly subjective opinions often written in a rather patronising way. Something like "The subject matter is far too complex for a one-shot, you really need to elaborate on the backstory" or "I really don't like song fics" or "This is way too angsty!" I mean, never mind that I thought the first accusation was utterly ridiculous, the second story stated right at the beginning that the inspiration for the story came from a song, and the third one was in the category of angst. What really gets me is that some people seem to wait for a new author and then they lash out.

I know that one of this kind of reviewers has been known to be the bane of some archive admins. Are they just vindictive? As in "Well if I can't get into the archive, I'll simply foulmouth anyone who can" kind of thing. It's a well enough known fact that fanfic authors and new authors don't have the linguistic freedom that a lot of authors do. We don't get away with omitting a comma just to keep the flow going. We don't get away with spelling 'headmaster' once uncapsed and the next time capsed. With a good beta, we don't even get away with screwing up the timeline of our stories. We are required to fanatically follow the rules of the English language, and I'm not even talking about those archives who beta-read instead of simply admin'ing a story before validating it. It is a generally accepted standard that if your story does not follow the general rules of the English language it won't be validated. And I think that's a good thing. For me at least, it taught me one hell of a lot about writing. Just reading stories on the afore-mentioned archives has improved my vocabulary, writing, grammar, punctuation, you name it. Very often these days, I find that books don't do that any more. Have you read a fiction lately? How many typos, non-sentences, lacking commas, superfluous commas have you found? I do not believe in rules in general. I do believe in communication, though. And in order to be able to communicate, we all need to agree on a form of communication that is universally comprehended. Because otherwise, that communication goes down the route of the panda who eats, shots, and leaves. And that would be a damn shame.

Another related issue that comes to mind is the sockpuppet in archives. I read one author's profile who actually proclaimed that she has a different ID that she uses to review for whatever reason. Now, I can't quite understand it because to me, it would be way too much effort and a waste of time if I have to keep switching my ID according to whether I read or submit, but that's me. And besides, I have no reason to hide my real identity because I'm not a nasty person, I'm merely blunt. But it left me wondering if it's a common trend to have another ID under which one leaves reviews so if one leaves a not so benign review it won't backfire. Or whatever other reason.

Thoughts?

Comments

[lady-karelia.livejournal.com]

As so many times, you speak out of my heart. To see an established author downtalking a new author is plainly disgusting. We all know what it's like to finally get accepted on one of the moderated archives. I have no doubt that most authors start out by being rejected. Unless I'm the exception *Snape_smirk* Thing is, the ones I'm grieving over had bad reviews from non-authors and some seriously good reviews from highly established authors.

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? 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? :-) 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.

I was raving mad about 15 months ago because Ash rejected my story. Once I calmed down and got over my hurt, I sat down and started reading grammar books. That, plus the help of a brilliant beta enabled me to get onto the moderated archives :-)

Yes, I, too, think there is quite a bit of jealousy from writers who do not make the effort to meet the criteria to get on the archives. I just find that so sad. I'm very lucky in that I never got a review like that, but at one stage, if I'd had, it would have stopped me from writing more. And I know there are lots of writers out there who decide not to write any more in the fandom because of one or three such poor reviews. That's why I brought this up on here.

I'm with you on the sock puppet. I leave reviews as I see fit, with my author name. I'd feel positively weird if I had to create a new name to just leave reviews. Oh yes, yahoo groups... *smirk* I use one in particular to just send update notices. :-) And *icon_lurve*

[larilee.livejournal.com]

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.

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 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. :-)

[lady-karelia.livejournal.com]

No. No. I'm not helping you down the soapbox. I enjoy it too much! I mean, most people disagree with everything I say, and then you come along and actually agree with a lot of my opinions. Or you post them first and I can't help but agree. So, no. I. Will. Not. Help. You. Down. The. Soapbox. And believe me, if I find a way to keep you up there, I will. :-)

I've had what I perceived as a seriously rude email from one of the admins originally, but as far as I know, she is no longer active. I find, in general, the archive has improved no end. Not only in terms of quality but also in terms of submission replies in terms of courtesy.

Which is exactly why I get so mad about reading reviews from non-authors (sockpuppets or not - who'd know anyways) who simply bash the writer.

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.

Yah. I totally agree. Which is why I posted my gripe in the first place, LOL. So many brilliant authors have not produced anything in two or three years. If we want to continue reading HG/SS fiction, then it really is in our interest to leave positive reviews for anyone who posts a promising fic.

And no, please don't get off the soapbox! It's valuable, ya know!