Search options (Page 8 of 32)

I suspect a bias from Sol in letting this thread - with no responses - last this long! It's been up for over a day! What say you, Sol? Like seeing  strokes in the Forum?

No problem, Stephen. I just wanted to make sure you knew the importance of feedback to reviewers, something new members on the site have not been aware of in the past. As I said in my review, I liked the start of your story and plan to continue with it.

Regarding the difficulty you found combining chapters in your book, another writer had a similar problem. It's easy to remedy: All you have to do is go to your profile page, click on your book, then click on + chapter. Then you paste your manuscript copy and the chapter will be added to what you've posted. If that wasn't your issue, then never mind. And you don't need to dismantle a chapter every time you make a revision in it. You can edit in situ. The original reviews will still be there, though the revision might make them irrelevant. But I don't usually read other reviews, anyway.

It's a nice reminder to reviewers of your book to see a new posted chapter in the list, but it's not essential. Good thing, since posts only last a few days before being pushed off the list by new posts. I keep a list of those books I'm reviewing, and when I don't see a new chapter posted, I go to the author's profile page, click on the book, and click on the next chapter in line.

Cheers!

I assume the murder is not discovered immediately and that it happened during the movie. So the murderer would have had ample time to walk out. The cops would have no hope to catch him in the theater. In my opinion, only that particular theater in the multiplex would be sealed off as a crime scene, and any patrons who had not left yet would be ID'd and questioned if they'd seen or heard anything - especially the discoverer of the body.

Way to go! I don't think I read that one of your series.

Donald Maass. Years ago when I was a neophyte and thought you needed an agent to get published, I queried him. Got no response. I queried him for my next book. Got no response. At that time I didn't know he'd written books on how to write a novel. You know the old saying: those that can't do, teach. Based on his track record, he can't do. One fiction book on his author page (written under a pseudonym) and for some reason he showcased a review from Publishers Weekly that was negative. No other reviews. So, not only is he not an accomplished novelist, he doesn't know marketing, either! But that book was published years ago, and he apparently learned he didn't have what it took to be a successful novelist. So now he writes books telling others how to write successful novels? Don't waste your money, peeps.

What I see wrong with the no-points (required or given) system is that our posts would only go to this group's members and not a much wider community of potential reviewers - including those who have joined the site after "the good old days," and with whom relationships have been established. I would rather post to Premium than to such a limited group. But I like the idea of bringing together again the "old-timers."

Way to go, Denise!

I wish you the best in your struggle, Mike. A positive attitude is a prerequisite, and you've got that.

Tiger's hunt ended with the OB drive, and now he's lost his enthusiasm. But UNC is playing for the Sweet Sixteen, and I'm not going to convince you anyway, so I'm outta here.

The rules of sentence structure regarding antecedents are there for a reason: to avoid ambiguity in every instance, not just berry-picking examples. In the given sentence, it's fairly obvious the cheetah is the antecedent, but structurally, it isn't. Excusing this because the meaning should be clear here ignores countless other instances where the meaning is not clear and gives a pass to sloppy sentence construction. Next subject: dangling participles.

Thanks, all. I'm still here, though not as frequently as before. I do check the Home page daily looking for new stories and new postings of stories I've started reviewing.