Reviewing stories and sockpuppets
Jul. 16th, 2006 07:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lady_kareliaI'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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-16 07:28 pm (UTC)I'm with you on having two ljs for different subjects. I have two email addresses, one I use for writing issues, the other for everything else. But that's not the same, is it?
I've seen this pattern of reviewers on both TPP and Ashwinder. And I agree with you, you don't have to be a brilliant writer to be accepted. Heck, my stuff is on there! It's just so great to be on the same site as such greats like Bambu or Quillusion. :-)
The problem with rules in English is that there are several very good grammar books about. But compare three of them, and you'll find about 50 different opinions. :-) What I do appreciate about both TPP and Ash is that if you argue your point and cite a valid reference, they tend to accept it. So, basically, choose one generally recognised grammar book and go by the rules in that, and if they want you to change something, simply cite your source.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-16 08:25 pm (UTC)Perhaps I wasn't insistent enough when I posted my stories at the archives. I just got the impression that they use much more commas than I am used to, but unfortunately they weren't consistent. There seem to be great differences between British and American English when it comes to punctuation.