pamelablack62 wrote:
except the part where you state that everybody here is better than me.
You understand perfectly well enough.
1 2015-01-15 23:59:17
Re: A new question about groups (44 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Basic)
2 2015-01-15 22:40:10
Re: A new question about groups (44 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Basic)
pamelablack62 wrote:
charles_bell wrote:pamelablack62 wrote:I agree, there should be a warning because I left a couple of reviews for non-paying authors, all inline as that is the only kind of review I do, so I was feeling frustrated to have taken my time and not hear back from the authors, especially the rougher drafts which took me a really long time. My attitude was, 'well I will never review them again if they can't/won't acknowledge my efforts,' so good to now know why.
I will no longer take the time to review non-paying members. I will also avoid leaving you my useless inline reviews should you become a paying member. Any author who publicly states ANY review is useless or worthless will never receive a review from me. I find that mentality arrogant and insulting.
I didn't say they were useless I just said that they are far more of a benefit to the reviewer than to a writer in most circumstances. What is the difference to the writer if the sum total of commentary is "Here (inline cite) you say 'she is tall' but there you say 'she is 5 foot 8'" and to say the same thing without an inline cite unless the writer has a bad memory of his own work? The reviewer is spared sometimes the bother of cut-and-paste, but again if the writer has a decent memory of his own work, that is of marginal benefit to him. I also think your attitude of stomping your foot down and declaring an edict that "if you don't play by my rules, I won't play!" is not a good attitude.
You are right, you did not directly use the word useless. What you said, in various forms and fashions was " Either way, the inline review encourages proofreading and not genuine substantive analysis and review, but few do, if anybody does, that here." The implied meaning is not only do you find inline reviews useless you find ALL reviews from this site, if not useless, at least lacking.
Thanks for the input on my attitude towards those who do not appreciate my efforts to help but I'll pass on taking etiquette advice from the fellow who just told the entire group he thinks himself above them and the time they have given to him in the form of reviews unhelpful.
I am not responsible to consider you for your actions except in the attitude: damn any merit in leaving any review for its own sake especially to the extent it may inconvenience you so terribly much . Moreover, I did actually say in this thread that I did find good value in some reviews I have received here and never said that I found no value in any review I received here of late. I am certainly entitled to state a preference (of substantive review over proofreading) and you are certainly not entitled to state the preference of yours as the only preference to be had by anyone, and for that I do consider myself better than you, but no such generality that I ever considered myself better than everybody can be honestly stated, and for that dishonesty from you, everybody here is better than you.
3 2015-01-15 22:19:38
Re: A new question about groups (44 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Basic)
pamelablack62 wrote:
charles_bell wrote:pamelablack62 wrote:I'm interested to know the benefit to the reviewer of an inline review to a free author?
The same benefit as to a premium reviewer, but he can't read his own review. It's easier to point to specific problems chronologically down through the text, and if he is not collecting points he could simply point out one or two and leave it at that, but like I said, this just leaves commentary over to merely proofreading.
My question to you was, what are the benefits to me, the reviewer, of having given my time to leave a review? How do I, as a writer, benefit from having left a review to another author? You have yet to answer that question.
I agree with you that the new format makes it much easier for me to leave an inline review however that is not the subject at hand. The subject at hand is your claim that somehow I am better served for leaving a free review than the non-paying recipient of said review. I'm asking you to support your claim with specifics and you have yet to do so.
Which is the question? Benefit of "inline review" or "review" to the reviewer? I gave (my) answer (above) to the former which is what you asked and not to the latter which you are now asking and I won't now answer because it actually has nothing to do with the subject. I have answered that question in a thread which was erased with my opinion on reviewing via the point system generally.
You mischaracterize my claim which is that the benefits for the inline reviewer are greater than the recipient of a inline review which is also in the above reply and with which you agree when you say: "I agree with you that the new format makes it much easier for me to leave an inline review," and you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. My claim includes the fact that the premium reviewer is crippled from leaving an easier-for-him inline review to a free member, and how does that benefit a paying reviewer?
4 2015-01-15 10:12:31
Re: A new question about groups (44 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Basic)
pamelablack62 wrote:
charles_bell wrote:pamelablack62 wrote:when done correctly there is no better or more helpful review than the inline review. Anyone taking the time to leave a proper inline review is, for me, worth their weight in gold. Perhaps Charles Bell has neither been the recipient or author of a proper inline review.
I was both writer and recipient as free and premium member of inline reviews, and I likewise with the original poster think it is strange to have the ability for a premium member to fruitlessly write one to a free member, for then not only is the free-member recipient made to suffer through cripple-ware but so is the paying premium member. Either way, the inline review encourages proofreading and not genuine substantive analysis and review, but few do, if anybody does, that here.
I agree, there should be a warning because I left a couple of reviews for non-paying authors, all inline as that is the only kind of review I do, so I was feeling frustrated to have taken my time and not hear back from the authors, especially the rougher drafts which took me a really long time. My attitude was, 'well I will never review them again if they can't/won't acknowledge my efforts,' so good to now know why.
I will no longer take the time to review non-paying members. I will also avoid leaving you my useless inline reviews should you become a paying member. Any author who publicly states ANY review is useless or worthless will never receive a review from me. I find that mentality arrogant and insulting.
I didn't say they were useless I just said that they are far more of a benefit to the reviewer than to a writer in most circumstances. What is the difference to the writer if the sum total of commentary is "Here (inline cite) you say 'she is tall' but there you say 'she is 5 foot 8'" and to say the same thing without an inline cite unless the writer has a bad memory of his own work? The reviewer is spared sometimes the bother of cut-and-paste, but again if the writer has a decent memory of his own work, that is of marginal benefit to him. I also think your attitude of stomping your foot down and declaring an edict that "if you don't play by my rules, I won't play!" is not a good attitude.
5 2015-01-15 09:59:21
Re: A new question about groups (44 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Basic)
pamelablack62 wrote:
charles_bell wrote:Mariana Reuter wrote:Norm:
You need to keep something under the sleeve or else nobody would be interested in becoming a premium member. What should be done is that, in a piece of work is published by a non-premium writer, inline reviews must be blocked for such piece.
However, the benefit of the inline review belongs to the reviewer (premium) and not so much to the one being reviewed (free) and yet the premium will have wasted his time if the free cannot read the review or the premium has to resort to a regular review though he may not want to -- the inline review being a kind of a cheap quasi-review, except on grammar and punctuation.
I'm interested to know the benefit to the reviewer of an inline review to a free author?
The same benefit as to a premium reviewer, but he can't read his own review. It's easier to point to specific problems chronologically down through the text, and if he is not collecting points he could simply point out one or two and leave it at that, but like I said, this just leaves commentary over to merely proofreading.
6 2015-01-14 10:17:36
Re: chapters (3 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
Pamela, go to the most recently posted chapter and go to the drop down arrow. The older ones should be there. As a matter of fact, when a new chapter is posted and I go to the piece I have marked to read, it always starts with chapter one and I have to drop down to find the latest.
It is actually a bit of a problem should one post two chapters at a time or even within a day or two of each other because people read the most recent only. I'm guessing you have a strategy for posting one a week whether or not you have more to post? It is also a bit frustrating to make a major revision to one older chapter and have it treated as an important update without deleting it and re-publishing, and then the sequence is re-ordered.
7 2015-01-14 10:09:22
Re: A new question about groups (44 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Basic)
pamelablack62 wrote:
when done correctly there is no better or more helpful review than the inline review. Anyone taking the time to leave a proper inline review is, for me, worth their weight in gold. Perhaps Charles Bell has neither been the recipient or author of a proper inline review.
I was both writer and recipient as free and premium member of inline reviews, and I likewise with the original poster think it is strange to have the ability for a premium member to fruitlessly write one to a free member, for then not only is the free-member recipient made to suffer through cripple-ware but so is the paying premium member. Either way, the inline review encourages proofreading and not genuine substantive analysis and review, but few do, if anybody does, that here.
8 2015-01-13 11:06:05
Re: A new question about groups (44 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Basic)
Temple Wang wrote:
charles_bell wrote:This sort of rambling mess of yours is exactly the sort of stuff that ought not to be reviewed inline at all. To point out a missed period or misspelt word here and there is not a review but rather a proofread. If all a reader wants to do is to cheaply gain points by pointing out five mistakes, or what he calls mistakes, then an inline is just fine but of little value to the author who ought to have had other means for proofreading in the first place. A proper review, the sort in my opinion might be worth paying for in premium, is one that points out fundamental flaws in the context of literary standards or queries as to the purpose of the author in doing what he has done in violating particular standards, if intentional, for better understanding for the reader and author that may alter and advance the standards. There is only the emotional feedback of a rather frivolous nature to review thus: here's your five misplaced quotation marks, word-order mistakes, and paragraph breaks, but good job and great story.
"Yes, Charles. Don't worry. No one has forgotten you. And everyone who knows you knows you don't like in-lines. And everyone who knows you knows why. But thanks for enlightening the Forum with that - 'cause who knows, maybe there's someone knew who hasn't had the pleasure of seeing you vent your spleen," said Temple vociferously, and not without a hint of sarcasm. And maybe when they see your post they'll be compelled to come a runnin' to give you a thorough Freebie review because they are so impressed by your charming attitude. Have you forgotten the last time you crossed me Charles? Have those claw marks on your face not healed yet?
Can't you just try being civil?
You must be fun at Halloween parties and appendectomy operations.
9 2015-01-13 11:02:16
Re: A new question about groups (44 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Basic)
njc wrote:
In fairness, there are some authors who request nitting.
Different authors ask for or need different things. Different reviewers have different skills to bring. Do we make use of it or fight it?
Still, there is an implied burden on the reviewer to give what the author asks for (and if he does not, then he would get whatever he gets) and rather too much a burden on the reviewer to proofread unless there is an explicit understanding for work-shopping between the two or within a group. Although I think it is too much to expect a sort of Amazon.Com book review, especially as this is done here chapter-by-chapter, but reviews here are lacking in very much merit except in nitting and patting-on-the-back. It is a sort of unlikely treasure hunt, but I have found gold twice, and I know it is possible.
10 2015-01-13 10:22:01
Re: A new question about groups (44 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Basic)
Temple Wang wrote:
charles_bell wrote:Temple Wang wrote:Hmm...I wonder if someone who has been on the site since 2006 and is a free member who can't read in-lines is the best person to be pontificating on the value of in-line reviews...just sayin'
Actually, yes. I will say that inline reviews are of little use to me as a free- or premium-member recipient of them, but, and you would know this if you read and/or comprehended the first post in the thread, for a paying member it could be frustrating not to be able to post them to a free member in a way they can be of use to that free member. It makes no sense to me to have a service for which one is paying but cannot use without restriction, that is: to anyone.
I have found that some people that don't want in-lines are arrogant know-it-alls that have a warped picture of themselves (Illusions of Grandeur) OR writing that is so loaded with grammar, punctuation and structural issues that they can't bear to have them pointed out OR they are simply too lazy to proof their work before they post....and some suffer from all three...it's tragic, really, as they are the ones so desperately in need —they don't realize that no matter how good the story might be, if people can't get past the lousy writing, it's all just an exercise in wheel-spinning. Alas, sometimes life is unfair when the book must be judged by its cover.... *swoons*
This sort of rambling mess of yours is exactly the sort of stuff that ought not to be reviewed inline at all. To point out a missed period or misspelt word here and there is not a review but rather a proofread. If all a reader wants to do is to cheaply gain points by pointing out five mistakes, or what he calls mistakes, then an inline is just fine but of little value to the author who ought to have had other means for proofreading in the first place. A proper review, the sort in my opinion might be worth paying for in premium, is one that points out fundamental flaws in the context of literary standards or queries as to the purpose of the author in doing what he has done in violating particular standards, if intentional, for better understanding for the reader and author that may alter and advance the standards. There is only the emotional feedback of a rather frivolous nature to review thus: here's your five misplaced quotation marks, word-order mistakes, and paragraph breaks, but good job and great story.
11 2015-01-13 01:32:43
Re: A new question about groups (44 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Basic)
Temple Wang wrote:
charles_bell wrote:However, the benefit of the inline review belongs to the reviewer (premium) and not so much to the one being reviewed (free) and yet the premium will have wasted his time if the free cannot read the review or the premium has to resort to a regular review though he may not want to -- the inline review being a kind of a cheap quasi-review, except on grammar and punctuation.
Hmm...I wonder if someone who has been on the site since 2006 and is a free member who can't read in-lines is the best person to be pontificating on the value of in-line reviews...just sayin'
Actually, yes. I will say that inline reviews are of little use to me as a free- or premium-member recipient of them, but, and you would know this if you read and/or comprehended the first post in the thread, for a paying member it could be frustrating not to be able to post them to a free member in a way they can be of use to that free member. It makes no sense to me to have a service for which one is paying but cannot use without restriction, that is: to anyone.
12 2015-01-12 23:46:48
Re: A new question about groups (44 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Basic)
Mariana Reuter wrote:
Norm:
You need to keep something under the sleeve or else nobody would be interested in becoming a premium member. What should be done is that, in a piece of work is published by a non-premium writer, inline reviews must be blocked for such piece.
However, the benefit of the inline review belongs to the reviewer (premium) and not so much to the one being reviewed (free) and yet the premium will have wasted his time if the free cannot read the review or the premium has to resort to a regular review though he may not want to -- the inline review being a kind of a cheap quasi-review, except on grammar and punctuation.
13 2014-12-14 15:27:22
Re: Dialogue Tags (15 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)
Temple Wang wrote:
charles_bell wrote:Temple Wang wrote:Here, here! Now there's something *
. . . a woman can take out of context to make her fallacious accusation.
Zzzzzz
Good. Mission accomplished.
14 2014-12-14 12:25:38
Re: Dialogue Tags (15 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)
Temple Wang wrote:
charles_bell wrote:Temple Wang wrote:(I did notice that as your argument lost wind your voice went gradually shriller.
I am not (a) writer who has an audience
Here, here! Now there's something *
. . . a woman can take out of context to make her fallacious accusation.
15 2014-12-14 12:22:27
Re: Dialogue Tags (15 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)
Temple Wang wrote:
"From what I hear,.
All of which is completely irrelevant for anyone who is interested in anything of some importance.
16 2014-12-14 10:23:45
Re: Dialogue Tags (15 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)
Michelle8 who banned me from her work, forever, I can only hope, wrote:
Dear Temple,
All I can say is BRAVO!!!!! You put my thoughts into words. Thank you!!!!!!
However, the fact is: she did use more than one or two words.
17 2014-12-14 10:22:14
Re: Dialogue Tags (15 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)
Temple Wang wrote:
(I did notice that as your argument lost wind your voice went gradually shriller.
The story reached its climax once you conceded that dialogue tags do not serve only the purpose for telling the reader who is saying or asking, and that you are a person who is confused and distracted by a big, scary word like "elucidate," and I am not writer who has an audience consisting of such a person.
18 2014-12-13 19:55:25
Re: Dialogue Tags (15 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)
You know, it's a pity you can't read in-lines, because despite my poking you in the final comments, I gave you a serious, thoughtful in line - I spent three hours of my morning on it. It's worth paying a month of dues to read
Sorry, this story is over. Whatever interesting thing you might say probably is not true, and your manifestly false and pointless personal attacks get old coming in the same tired way from the same tired person. There is something corrupt in a culture as exists here that honesty, fairness, and no-B.S. directness is cast as being mean-spirited.
On the other hand, shall I say there were only three dialogue tags in that chapter that were "off the list," and most were the plain "asked" and "said" and if you had been honest from the beginning and pointed out "elucidated" was not a good word choice, I would have thanked you, considered it for a day, and left it in for the reason I gave you. "Elucidated" makes sense in the context of the story and for the purpose of the (sub)theme. What you claim is my fault is your choice to follow the Emperor.
19 2014-12-13 16:34:36
Re: Dialogue Tags (15 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)
Temple Wang wrote:
Keep that perspective, and you'll sell millions, that's for sure. In fact, I suggest you write a book on dialogue tags, as I've never seen such an interesting hypothesis on the topic espoused. Shoot, you might even write a novel with just the dialogue tags, forget all those ploty, dialoguey, descriptiony, charactery thingeys altogether. You could call it: "He Opined"
"May the perfect dialogue tag always find its way to your pen," Temple blessed effusively. :-)
If it is your lifestyle and pursuit of art to obey the Emperor, that is for you to decide, but even the assumption there is but one dialogue-tag Emperor to obey is false, see here: http://www.spwickstrom.com/said/ and for the matter one will find "chided" but not "elucidated" in that list, what is important to note for anyone interested in English beyond the simple for the simple is that your obediance to the "said" orders is ridiculous.
20 2014-12-13 12:02:38
Topic: Dialogue Tags (15 replies, posted in Literary Fiction)
There is one opinion that the operative verb in a dialogue tag (he said, she asked, etc.) consists of a handful of possibilities, and an another opinion that it can consist of very many possibilities, and both consistent in the view that the verb be logically possible in the process of uttering the dialogue "He is fat", she laughed. is a poor choice because one cannot say something and laugh at the same time.
My opinion is with the latter for (1) economy of words to express both the action and the dialogue at the same time and (2) to indicate the likely intonation that would go with the words being uttered.
“I had two cats, Amos ’n’ Andy,” Curt stated. “You should remember what happened to Amos,” Curt chided.
With "chided" comes a certain intonation that is quite different than what comes with "stated" which itself comes with a different intonation (and purpose) than "said." "Said" and "asked" (demanded by those of the first opinion) are irrelevant dialogue tags except to indicate who is speaking and on different intonation between only a statement and a question. To some degree I make this point in sometimes switching to script style as if to say: why do novels have "He said. She said. And then. And then. And then. She said. He said. And then . . . "? That style of writing is like white noise in its effectiveness. 100,000 words and nothing more than five dialogue tags when there are hundreds of ways to express the means to utter words.
Also I have written:
“Andy Cat, too, there” Curt added. “But I'd say not in the same way as Millie, just as my father not nearly in the same way as my mother.”
“I'm sure Andy hates you and is hiding,” Miss P. momentarily looked up from her reading to comment to Max.
“In what way?” Max asked.
“Frightened by you, rather,” Miss P. elucidated.
“No, I meant…I was asking Curt: in what way he'd have his mother with him in heaven but not so much his father, and Puddy not so much as Joe. Millie, I mean.”
This use of dialogue tags serves several purposes. OUT OF CONTEXT the use of "elucidated" may appear to be inappropriately over-the-top even in the opinion that tags serve more than the one purpose to indicate who is speaking. (1) The characters are talking past each other out of synch to normal give-and-take -- a theme of the book from which this taken -- (2) Curt "adds" to what he has just said prior to this excerpt, and so too Miss P. not only adds but sheds light on (the meaning of "elucidate") what she has just said. "Clarify" might also work but for the fact that (as a theme to the book) the women in the book, with one exception, elucidate in a broad sense beyond the rational, rather than clarify which implies mere rational intercourse.
I can see:
“I'm sure Andy hates you and is hiding,” Miss P. momentarily looked up from her reading to comment to Max."
is not an economy of words that can be better expressed:
Miss P. momentarily looked up from her reading and commented to Max, "I'm sure . . . " [Or even "said" instead of "commented"]
This is a valid point made by those of the opinion which limits the choice of dialogue tags in order to express a separate action from the dialogue, although I can say that the original choice emphasizes what is said and not the prior action even if chronologically the action must come before the dialogue.
21 2014-12-12 04:36:27
Re: Point system dying? (61 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
, but some folks also need to learn how to give constructive criticism.
But honesty doesn't have to be cruel.
So, that's my two cents worth on this topic,
Yes, it was worth reading, and not rude and condescending unlike every other response to what I thought was my plain, rational comment.
"Honesty does not have to be cruel" was not something I advocated. For example, "I like the genre and the sub-genre in which you have posted your story, and I have read extensively in that genre off the shelf and in TNBW, but your stuff sucks!" is not un-constructive and not cruel at all, if one or two examples for that opinion is provided. I think just an expression of displeasure without much detail from someone whose opinion you ought to have reason to believe has merit is of value. It is not "nice" but it is not mean-spirited as one hears often among entitled people who have low self-esteem and apparently can read minds.
22 2014-12-12 04:13:30
Re: Point system dying? (61 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)
Temple Wang wrote:
charles_bell wrote:But no, everyone either wants to suck up...or get reciprocal reviews of the junk they write for the junk they read.
Wow....
I, for one, would prefer not to be lumped into your "everyone" pile. Thank you very much, Mr. I-never-met-a-word-I-couldn't-use-as-a-dialogue-tag. :-)
Sure. He said, she said, and then, and then, and then, and she said, and he said, and then and then -- does not constitute 99% of fiction and is never junk, especially never on TNBW.
23 2014-12-12 04:06:22
Re: Point system dying? (61 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)
janet reid wrote:
I'm also saying you can give a brutally honest review but you can still be nice.
Find an example in which I was honest, and, for that matter since I have been back certainly, giving of compliment in equal proportion to criticism (or so I tried) and not nice. If you cannot even know what I may be talking about, then how do you know, and have rudely presumed all along to know, that I cannot be honest and nice and so in need or your advice? It is true I have no time for all the folderal (yes, I had to look that one up for spelling) of "If I may be so bold as to suggest the following improvements . . ." In point of fact, I got jumped on for suggesting an author's explicit criticism of euphemisms such as Gosh for God was insulting to those parents who would rather instruct their children to do so. How was that friendly from the author about my suggestion on being nice to people?
24 2014-12-12 03:26:50
Re: Point system dying? (61 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)
Temple Wang wrote:
You can read reviews of my work that people have generously left for no points. There are more than two. Seriously, you [insert your favorite expletive], if you are so disenchanted, then why don't you just go instead of spreading vitriol?
There appears to be nothing by you that is available for me to read. Moreover, I never said that by eliminating the points system, honest but what also may be scathing reviews would magically appear. In fact, if reviews did then trickle down to nothing, as seems to be the prediction by the folks running the show, that also shows there is a culture of dishonesty (or perhaps that is too strong a word for the negativity) circling around this concept of amateur reviews by amateur writers or in the nature of budding writers so many of whom must have fragile egos and impolite natures.
25 2014-12-12 03:12:06
Re: Point system dying? (61 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)
janet reid wrote:
Charles, you don't need to make friends or even be friendly, but some decent courtesy does go along way. We're here to learn by reading/reviewing and getting read/reviewed. And surprisingly, work being posted here do need inprovement as I'm sure your writing do as well. If its too hard for you, don't read on and don't leave a review. But referring to anything on this site as "junk" shows to me you need to grow up as a person and as a writer. Of course you can criticize, thats what the site is for, but you can still be decent and supportive in doing so. It's not sucking up, it's called good manners. Each to their own but like Sol said, your comment doesn't contribute anything to this debate.
My opinion formed when I first joined eight years ago, when I remembered (perhaps incorrectly) there was only the point system for reviewing, and only kind, mother-like reviews begat a review in reciprocation, and, worse yet, open and honest reviews begat revenge reviews that had no substance other than naked ridicule. This has changed a bit for the better from what I can see now that I have re-engaged because of the subject line: Point system dying, (and not soon enough for me). In your reply there is a kind of contradiction: no honest review, when it is scathing but deserving (which I presume you consider indecent), can make "friends." Why is that? May I suggest there may be a culture of spoiled middling at best writers who can never be better because of pampered fear of honest reviews that don't make friends or perhaps from some namby-pamby attitude against honesty called good manners. There is no "junk" no this site? Really? None? I know there is some that is not junk at all, but who can claim in any pool of anything there is never inferior stuff?
