Jonathan Riley
from Memphis, Tennessee is reading Flashover by Gordon Highland March 12, 2013 - 6:53am
I'm red on the inside.
Strange Photon
from Fort Wayne, IN is reading Laurie Anderson lyricsMarch 12, 2013 - 6:55am
God, I certainly hope so. I fucking love gingers.
Well, I love raven haired Filipinas, but merely lust after gingers.
There ya go, Utah and Dwayne, there's the awkward moment you wanted so bad.
Oh, and assertion, not ascertion or ascertain. One would be a typo, though so glaringly hard to accidentally type that it would be easily assumed to be one's inability to know the correct spelling, and the other would be just an entirely wrong word choice. Sure, spell check wouldn't catch that one, but one quick reading by someone with two decades of experience in the literature industry would definitely be more than enough to ascertain the problem.
Class Director
Rob
from New York City is reading at a fast enough pace it would be cumbersome to update thisMarch 12, 2013 - 6:58am
@drea, we actively discriminate against gingers.
Thats it, though. Everyone else is welcome.
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeMarch 12, 2013 - 7:17am
LitReactor discriminates against DST, it seems.
-----
I'm more of an auburn/coppertop than a full-on ginger. (Which is to say the freckles-to-square-inch ratio is relatively low.) Some people make distinction between the two, some don't.
-----
I think "transgression" has more to do with societal standards than large-scale traditions such as the very broad and variegated "Judeo-Christian" or "Western." What seems transgressive to an American might be different from what seems so to a native Italian, though both are "Western" societies. Likewise, what was transgressive in the 19th century might not be in the 21st, though certain acts or statements could still be. It's a very relative idea, and sometimes this relation is to ideas which certain people believe are absolute.
-----
Regarding people's references to my posts: I wasn't really offended, but if you interpret or utilize my statements in order to make your own, I might have something to say about it; that's all it was.
Brandon
from KCMO is reading Made to BreakMarch 12, 2013 - 7:24am
Let's go over this again. I pose the question:
I'm now going to ask this for the FOURTH time:
Do you honestly think we have some kind of Excel spreadsheet in which every contributor and columnist is broken down by race, religion, gender, sexual orientation? Is this something you'd like us to whip up for you?
Yes or no, Todd. It's simple. I just don't think I can answer your question until you answer mine.
Your simple answer is this:
To answer to the specifics of your question, no.
That's you saying you don't require any transparency amongst the staff regarding their background, but to refer back to the OP, you do want to see more color, and that brings up a myriad of other questions:
How much more color?
Which colors?
Are all colors equal?
Then you do this:
But do I think someone who works there will have read many of the writings of the contributors, if not out of a sense of interest, then simply because they'd want to monitor what's being submitted; and in reading these writings, would pay enough attention to recall details about them; and in recalling details, remember if anyone wrote an essay from a non-Western, or non-Judeo Christian, or non-Western non-Judeo Christian viewpoint on writing? Yes.
So you don't want background information, but you're indicating that the person's background is an area of interest and the people writing these columns should share that so you, the reader, can gauge our prospective.
Basically, you say you don't want background information but immediately follow it up with how the cultural/religious background is something the reader is going to want to know. You're literally the first and only guy to ask about this and make it an issue. Just you. That's why you're seeing that tidal wave of everyone disagreeing.
Meanwhile, you're coming off ignorant, Todd. Not only did I have to ask you the question four times, you still didn't give a straight answer when you finally did adress it.
"Ignorant" isn't a term I throw around lightly but you're playing the role, man. It says in your bio that you're a teacher (a swell of pity for those kids that depend on you for an education)...but how would you handle a student that needed to be asked a question multiple times, never gave straight answers, and selectively listened to the information being provided? If it seems like people are getting frustrated with you or have written you off, it's because of those very attributes.
Oh, and let me point out that we don't know your race, your cultural background, your income bracket, your religion, your sexual orientation. You're being judged on the merit of what you've written and the ideas you've brought to the table.
Brandon
from KCMO is reading Made to BreakMarch 12, 2013 - 7:55am
Also, Todd, I want to apply what everyone is saying in a different context.
I noticed a couple things about your workshop submissions.
When asked to provide a synopsis, you instead provide the first line of the story. When asked to fill out the author's agenda, you instead give the first paragraph(s) of the story.
So when people say you don't offer clear responses to simple questions or ignore what's being asked of you--that illustrates it rather perfectly.
Another question you'll probably ignore: What if you asked a student to provide a synopsis and they instead gave the first line of the story as you did?
Todd Sullivan
from America is reading Workshop fictionMarch 12, 2013 - 7:58am
That's you saying you don't require any transparency amongst the staff regarding their background,
Contributors writing from different worldviews make themselves known through the writing. If you look at that essay you posted, the author admits to coming from an industrialized Western worldview, and admits to using a Judeo-Christian lense to define transgression. Though you may not have a dossier on his cultural, racial, or ethnic background, he basically states in the essay while making his points that he's a Westerner coming from a Judeo-Christian worldview.
Most of the time, a writer's biography is in his/her writing.
How much more color?
Which colors?
Are all colors equal?
People of colour is just a phrasing of speech for cultural/racial/ethnic diversity. If the wording distracts you from my overall message, then happily disregard it and replace it with 'greater cultural/racial/ethnic diversity'.
So you don't want background information, but you're indicating that the person's background is an area of interest and the people writing these columns should share that so you, the reader, can gague our prospective.
The writer's background is in his essay.
Basically, you say you don't want background information but immediately follow it up with how the cultural/religious background is something the reader is going to want to know.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. I did answer no to the specifics of your question. The cultural/religious/ethnic/racial background is going to come through in the writing because of what the writer mentions in making his/her points, and what the writer mentions in how he/she came to the points they're making. And if LitReactoer is privy to a writer's writing before said writer joins the team, then not only by the individual's name, but also by their references will they be able to make educated guesses on the individual's background.
Do you not agree that the writer of that essay left an awful lot of breadcrumbs letting readers know his ethnic/cultural/racial background? Or would you think from his essay that there's a chance that he's a Shiite Iranian, or a Chinese person who practices Confucianism?
Strange Photon
from Fort Wayne, IN is reading Laurie Anderson lyricsMarch 12, 2013 - 8:02am
@Brandon: I am so thrilled to see someone else mention that. I had wondered what was up with it, but, ya know, I didn't want to be 'that guy'. Besides, I doubted to my very core that there would be a satisfying answer if I brought up the query in here. I just chalked it up to some people's inability to follow instructions.
Not that you're 'that guy', Brandon. In fact you're THE guy, if for no other reason than because I said so - which ought to be enough of a reason for anything in this world.
Todd Sullivan
from America is reading Workshop fictionMarch 12, 2013 - 8:07am
When asked to provide a synopsis, you instead provide the first line of the story. When asked to fill out the author's agenda, you instead give the first paragraph(s) of the story.
This is true. I believe in letting the story speak for itself, so I don't offer a synopsis or an author's agenda. If the first words don't pull you in, they don't pull you in. And I prefer a reader's reaction to come free without any misconceptions from what I may or may not have been trying to do in the piece.
Basically, I prefer virgin readers to the writing in question in order to get a pure response.
Todd Sullivan
from America is reading Workshop fictionMarch 12, 2013 - 8:11am
I just chalked it up to some people's inability to follow instructions.
This is also true. I'm not very good with instructions. IKEA is the bane of my existence. They have innovative ideas for storage, true, but what good does that do me when I break half the parts trying to put the damn credenza together? IMHO, "No Assembly Necessary" is the bees knees.
Todd Sullivan
from America is reading Workshop fictionMarch 12, 2013 - 8:24am
Also, I'm still curious how many people agree with Renee's idea of Transgression Fiction. J.Y. provided an answer:
I think "transgression" has more to do with societal standards than large-scale traditions such as the very broad and variegated "Judeo-Christian" or "Western." What seems transgressive to an American might be different from what seems so to a native Italian, though both are "Western" societies. Likewise, what was transgressive in the 19th century might not be in the 21st, though certain acts or statements could still be. It's a very relative idea, and sometimes this relation is to ideas which certain people believe are absolute.
But do many others here agree with what Reness originally posted:
Even if it was written by a Buddhist monk living in Tibet, it would still focus on the Judeo-Christian ideas of transgression because THAT IS HOW THE TERM IS USED IN FICTION.
Strange Photon
from Fort Wayne, IN is reading Laurie Anderson lyricsMarch 12, 2013 - 8:30am
Equating one's inability/unwillingness to follow a simple format on a submission page with one's overarching personality trait of independence and tendency for free thought is spurious, at best. At worst, you imply that anyone who shows enough respect to provide a quick, one sentence overview of their submission in the synopsis then a few comments about what they'd like the reviewer to pay close attention to when forming a review - per intstructions - is a 'follower'.
If you truly believe that following instructions is the same as being a 'follower' then... well... yeah... 'Nuff said.
EDIT: I wrote this as I did, because before you edited your second to last post about my comment about your habit of quoting the first sentence of your submission instead of an actual synopsis, so as to remove the single line you originally wrote about not being a follower.
Rather than summarily cutting this reply to that entirely, or even editing its overall tone, I chose to leave it as is, but add this EDIT section so that others who didn't see the changes you made to your tone and implications wouldn't believe I was just being an assumptive prick. I very well may be a prick, but not an assumptive one.
drea
from Rural Alberta, Canada is reading between the linesMarch 12, 2013 - 8:27am
Everybody knows gingers ain't got souls.
Brandon
from KCMO is reading Made to BreakMarch 12, 2013 - 8:29am
The cultural/religious/ethnic/racial background is going to come through in the writing because of what the writer mentions in making his/her points, and what the writer mentions in how he/she came to the points they're making. And if LitReactoer is privy to a writer's writing before said writer joins the team, then not only by the individual's name, but also by their references will they be able to make educated guesses on the individual's background.
No one has a problem with culture/religious/ethnic/racial background coming through in the writing. The thing we're not doing through is playing detective and trying to figure out what race/religion/culture a person is based on what they write for us. It's not important enough to ask, just like no one has asked you about your own race/religion/cultural background.
Do you not agree that the writer of that essay left an awful lot of breadcrumbs letting readers know his ethnic/cultural/racial background? Or would you think from his essay that there's a chance that he's a Shiite Iranian, or a Chinese person who practices Confucianism?
Todd, I'm going to intentionally ignore these questions. You'll have to ask them a few more times before I respond with an unclear answer/non-response/question of my own.
This is true. I believe in letting the story speak for itself, so I don't offer a synopsis or an author's agenda. If the first words don't pull you in, they don't pull you in. And I prefer a reader's reaction to come free without any misconceptions from what I may or may not have been trying to do in the piece.
The synopsis and the author's agenda aren't for you. They're for the person trying to offer a critique. It's an at-a-glance reference for what the story is about and what exactly you're looking to improve/areas of concern. The fact that you intentionally ignore it says you can't follow simple directions and you think you're above the process. It also makes the job of the person giving the critique difficult because they don't know what the hell you want.
Please, never ask for help on query letters or anything like that. If you admittedly can't follow simple instructions, you're a lost cause. I mean, you do realize this is an industry where things like format and the like actually matter, right?
Strange Photon
from Fort Wayne, IN is reading Laurie Anderson lyricsMarch 12, 2013 - 8:33am
Drea, they may not have souls - in fact, the few I've spent significant time with have no semblance of emotional stability either - but they do have such mouthwateringly milky white skin.
drea
from Rural Alberta, Canada is reading between the linesMarch 12, 2013 - 8:35am
I dug this up for anyone interested in getting back to the original topic of REVIEWING, or as I like to call it, "The Rules of the Sandbox":
Review Tips
We know it can be a little intimidating to offer critique when you're new to a workshop setting. You may feel that some of the authors are so far beyond your current skill level that you can't possibly identify what would help them to improve. You may feel that others are so much in need of mechanical basics that you'd never complete the review without shreading and rearranging every sentence. The intent of the following tips is not to reduce the reviewing process to a simple formula, but to share useful and general guidelines that will see you through, regardless of perceived imbalances in knowledge and skill.
* Adopt a helpful and respectful attitude. You're not out for blood.
* Read anything you are going to review in its entirety. Maybe twice.
* Take your time with each review. Don't rush. Show an investment of time and care.
* Praise and positive statements are completely welcome. But a quick paragraph of vague encouragement or cheerleading is no substitute for a review that demonstates you've given the story a close reading.
* Make margin notes that capture your immediate responses. First reactions are valuable.
* Reflect some and develop first impressions and quick notes into a substantial review of 250-750 words.
* Develop and support your critical arguments. When you make an assertion, back it up.
* Pay close attention to the Author's Agenda and address those specific concerns.
*You can always focus on the basics, devoting a paragraph each to Characters, Dialogue, etc.
* You may also focus on Hook, Theme, Exposition, Story Arc, and so forth. Take some time to learn these terms.
* Don't expect more awesome reviews than you're giving out. But expect our patience if you're new and here to learn.
* Remember, this is a Workshop, not a place to showcase finished products. Toughen up. * * Expect criticism and receive it well.
* Separate you ego from the equation and look for ways to improve your work.
* Show gratitude that you're getting read, at all, but reserve your highest praise for reviewers who take obvious time and care with your work.
* Hesitate from posting when you're upset or angry. Bring mindfulness to every stage of the process.
* When it doubt, apply the Golden Rule to all your interactions. Treat others as you would have them treat you, because most often, they will.
Strange Photon
from Fort Wayne, IN is reading Laurie Anderson lyricsMarch 12, 2013 - 8:40am
Separate you ego from the equation and look for ways to improve your work.
I had such a hard time with this when I first started. Despite my bottomless pit of self-loathing, I also posses more ego than is healthy. Go figure.
I imagine that is one of the hardest things to let go of in this field, as writers birth babies with their creations, and no one likes being told their baby is grammatically deformed, or lacks cohesive character development. I don't have kids, but I assume this is true.
Thanks for posting that list of tips, Drea, it's always good to be reminded how not to be an oversensitive jackass.
drea
from Rural Alberta, Canada is reading between the linesMarch 12, 2013 - 8:40am
@Strange - I should have clarified: we don't discriminate against girl rangas, just the boy rangas. Red girls steal your souls but we happily offer them up (I know one stole mine) whereas boy gingers are soul-less pits. We eradicated most of them in the great ranga roundup/cleansing of November 2011.
Todd Sullivan
from America is reading Workshop fictionMarch 12, 2013 - 8:43am
It also makes the job of the person giving the critique difficult because they don't know what the hell you want.
Generally after many critiques the criqituer asks the critiqued if they have any questions. At which point the critiqued can tell the critiquer, if they so choose, what their intention was. This allows the crtiqiuer to read the story free of influence initially, but offer additional feedback based on the author's intent; and it allows the critiqued to explain what they were going for.
The reason why I think this is more effective is because the first read-through allows the writer to know how someone may perceive their story if it was published and just out there (which probably means it's without a synopsis or author's intent). The followup allows the writer to know more specifically what they can do in order to make connections that perhaps weren't there on the page.
Strange Photon
from Fort Wayne, IN is reading Laurie Anderson lyricsMarch 12, 2013 - 8:45am
Oh, ok, Drea, I get it, and I'm fine with that. I have zero use for redheaded boys whatsoever. And like the good little sociopath that I am, I firmly believe things/people I have no use for need not even exist. Glad you clarified that. I was worried.
Though, I'm sad beyond words that I missed a roundup/cleansing, AGAIN. I never get to cleanse anything/anyone these days...
Jonathan Riley
from Memphis, Tennessee is reading Flashover by Gordon Highland March 12, 2013 - 8:52am
Or you could do what I do and request they not read my agenda until after they've read my story. So they go into it unbiassed, and then can address my personal concerns after they've read the piece. It's more convenient that way for both writer and reviewer.
avery of the dead
from Kentucky is reading Cipher SistersMarch 12, 2013 - 9:18am
Let's go over this again.
HOW ABOUT WE DON'T.
This is pointless. I highly suggest you all stop beating a dead horse and end this "look at how fucking clever I am" thread. If you think anyone in here is coming away looking like a hero or a winner, you are sadly mistaken.
This drawn out nonsensical argument is the sort of thing that makes the forums look bad. Not because of Todd drawing attention to a potential "issue" (which, yes, we have all proudly jumped up and down and said he was wrong), but because it is a petty never ending argument.
I think it's about time to lock this thread up if we can't be mature enough to quit going around and around patting each other on the back and repeating the same arguments for eternity.
Brandon
from KCMO is reading Made to BreakMarch 12, 2013 - 9:20am
Generally after many critiques the criqituer asks the critiqued if they have any questions. At which point the critiqued can tell the critiquer, if they so choose, what their intention was. This allows the crtiqiuer to read the story free of influence initially, but offer additional feedback based on the author's intent; and it allows the critiqued to explain what they were going for.The reason why I think this is more effective is because the first read-through allows the writer to know how someone may perceive their story if it was published and just out there (which probably means it's without a synopsis or author's intent). The followup allows the writer to know more specifically what they can do in order to make connections that perhaps weren't there on the page.
But if you're submitting a story for workshop rather than submitting it to lit mags for publication, that implies that you're not confident in the story's ability to be published. You're asking for help, but rather than "help us help you," as they say, you'd rather have people randomly guess what your areas of concern are under the pretense that they MIGHT follow up with you on what you actually want addressed. You're sort of cheating both parties here.
Class Facilitator
ReneeAPickup
from Southern California is reading Wanderers by Chuck WendigMarch 12, 2013 - 10:36am
Todd - In my first comment about the transgressive essay I said it was a descriptor for a certain type of fiction, and that some consider that particular type of fiction a "genre". Your bio says you're an English teacher, so I assume you know what genre is.
As for my examples, they were all sarcastic.
Class Facilitator
ReneeAPickup
from Southern California is reading Wanderers by Chuck WendigMarch 12, 2013 - 10:40am
As for your "picking low hanging fruit", that says so much about your ability to back anything you're saying up. If you had a strong case, you'd be able to respond to the well constructed arguments as well as the "low hanging fruit", and yes, avoiding addressing the stuff you can't twist to fit your argument IS ignoring people's points.
jyh
from VA is reading whatever he feels likeMarch 12, 2013 - 11:14am
All this ranga rage
I guess I had it coming, being so special and all
;-(
^ me
fport
from Canada is reading The World Until Yesterday - Jared DiamondMarch 12, 2013 - 12:20pm
SEVEN PAGES - only three and a bit to go, I'm so jealous. My biggest flop thread was only two posts.
What is it that you all think that you are doing? Really. Is everybody just looking for something to do?
Procrastination is really ugly when this is the result. I've already said my piece, this is just to keep my post count heading for the next milestone. At least in my challenge thread I raised situational ethics which is a way more interesting subject for me over this complete non-issue.
avery of the dead
from Kentucky is reading Cipher SistersMarch 12, 2013 - 12:28pm
I've become increasingly tired of the disrespectful nature of some of these threads.
It seems that if you guys aren't fighting or bashing something the forum is dead. Is that really what this is about? Is that the point of LitReactor, to condescend and be shitty to people who disagree?
I'm shutting down this thread, and I made Flybywrite's thread a read-only for the time being, because I'd like everyone to take a minute and actually read it without just trying to come up with something sharp and witty to say in return.
Just act right. This is a writing forum. Not a debate forum. Not a place to fight.
I'm red on the inside.
God, I certainly hope so. I fucking love gingers.
Well, I love raven haired Filipinas, but merely lust after gingers.
There ya go, Utah and Dwayne, there's the awkward moment you wanted so bad.
Oh, and assertion, not ascertion or ascertain. One would be a typo, though so glaringly hard to accidentally type that it would be easily assumed to be one's inability to know the correct spelling, and the other would be just an entirely wrong word choice. Sure, spell check wouldn't catch that one, but one quick reading by someone with two decades of experience in the literature industry would definitely be more than enough to ascertain the problem.
@drea, we actively discriminate against gingers.
Thats it, though. Everyone else is welcome.
LitReactor discriminates against DST, it seems.
-----
I'm more of an auburn/coppertop than a full-on ginger. (Which is to say the freckles-to-square-inch ratio is relatively low.) Some people make distinction between the two, some don't.
-----
I think "transgression" has more to do with societal standards than large-scale traditions such as the very broad and variegated "Judeo-Christian" or "Western." What seems transgressive to an American might be different from what seems so to a native Italian, though both are "Western" societies. Likewise, what was transgressive in the 19th century might not be in the 21st, though certain acts or statements could still be. It's a very relative idea, and sometimes this relation is to ideas which certain people believe are absolute.
-----
Regarding people's references to my posts: I wasn't really offended, but if you interpret or utilize my statements in order to make your own, I might have something to say about it; that's all it was.
Let's go over this again. I pose the question:
Your simple answer is this:
That's you saying you don't require any transparency amongst the staff regarding their background, but to refer back to the OP, you do want to see more color, and that brings up a myriad of other questions:
How much more color?
Which colors?
Are all colors equal?
Then you do this:
So you don't want background information, but you're indicating that the person's background is an area of interest and the people writing these columns should share that so you, the reader, can gauge our prospective.
Basically, you say you don't want background information but immediately follow it up with how the cultural/religious background is something the reader is going to want to know. You're literally the first and only guy to ask about this and make it an issue. Just you. That's why you're seeing that tidal wave of everyone disagreeing.
Meanwhile, you're coming off ignorant, Todd. Not only did I have to ask you the question four times, you still didn't give a straight answer when you finally did adress it.
"Ignorant" isn't a term I throw around lightly but you're playing the role, man. It says in your bio that you're a teacher (a swell of pity for those kids that depend on you for an education)...but how would you handle a student that needed to be asked a question multiple times, never gave straight answers, and selectively listened to the information being provided? If it seems like people are getting frustrated with you or have written you off, it's because of those very attributes.
Oh, and let me point out that we don't know your race, your cultural background, your income bracket, your religion, your sexual orientation. You're being judged on the merit of what you've written and the ideas you've brought to the table.
Also, Todd, I want to apply what everyone is saying in a different context.
I noticed a couple things about your workshop submissions.
When asked to provide a synopsis, you instead provide the first line of the story. When asked to fill out the author's agenda, you instead give the first paragraph(s) of the story.
So when people say you don't offer clear responses to simple questions or ignore what's being asked of you--that illustrates it rather perfectly.
Another question you'll probably ignore: What if you asked a student to provide a synopsis and they instead gave the first line of the story as you did?
Contributors writing from different worldviews make themselves known through the writing. If you look at that essay you posted, the author admits to coming from an industrialized Western worldview, and admits to using a Judeo-Christian lense to define transgression. Though you may not have a dossier on his cultural, racial, or ethnic background, he basically states in the essay while making his points that he's a Westerner coming from a Judeo-Christian worldview.
Most of the time, a writer's biography is in his/her writing.
People of colour is just a phrasing of speech for cultural/racial/ethnic diversity. If the wording distracts you from my overall message, then happily disregard it and replace it with 'greater cultural/racial/ethnic diversity'.
The writer's background is in his essay.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. I did answer no to the specifics of your question. The cultural/religious/ethnic/racial background is going to come through in the writing because of what the writer mentions in making his/her points, and what the writer mentions in how he/she came to the points they're making. And if LitReactoer is privy to a writer's writing before said writer joins the team, then not only by the individual's name, but also by their references will they be able to make educated guesses on the individual's background.
Do you not agree that the writer of that essay left an awful lot of breadcrumbs letting readers know his ethnic/cultural/racial background? Or would you think from his essay that there's a chance that he's a Shiite Iranian, or a Chinese person who practices Confucianism?
@Brandon: I am so thrilled to see someone else mention that. I had wondered what was up with it, but, ya know, I didn't want to be 'that guy'. Besides, I doubted to my very core that there would be a satisfying answer if I brought up the query in here. I just chalked it up to some people's inability to follow instructions.
Not that you're 'that guy', Brandon. In fact you're THE guy, if for no other reason than because I said so - which ought to be enough of a reason for anything in this world.
This is true. I believe in letting the story speak for itself, so I don't offer a synopsis or an author's agenda. If the first words don't pull you in, they don't pull you in. And I prefer a reader's reaction to come free without any misconceptions from what I may or may not have been trying to do in the piece.
Basically, I prefer virgin readers to the writing in question in order to get a pure response.
This is also true. I'm not very good with instructions. IKEA is the bane of my existence. They have innovative ideas for storage, true, but what good does that do me when I break half the parts trying to put the damn credenza together? IMHO, "No Assembly Necessary" is the bees knees.
Also, I'm still curious how many people agree with Renee's idea of Transgression Fiction. J.Y. provided an answer:
But do many others here agree with what Reness originally posted:
Equating one's inability/unwillingness to follow a simple format on a submission page with one's overarching personality trait of independence and tendency for free thought is spurious, at best. At worst, you imply that anyone who shows enough respect to provide a quick, one sentence overview of their submission in the synopsis then a few comments about what they'd like the reviewer to pay close attention to when forming a review - per intstructions - is a 'follower'.
If you truly believe that following instructions is the same as being a 'follower' then... well... yeah... 'Nuff said.
EDIT: I wrote this as I did, because before you edited your second to last post about my comment about your habit of quoting the first sentence of your submission instead of an actual synopsis, so as to remove the single line you originally wrote about not being a follower.
Rather than summarily cutting this reply to that entirely, or even editing its overall tone, I chose to leave it as is, but add this EDIT section so that others who didn't see the changes you made to your tone and implications wouldn't believe I was just being an assumptive prick. I very well may be a prick, but not an assumptive one.
Everybody knows gingers ain't got souls.
No one has a problem with culture/religious/ethnic/racial background coming through in the writing. The thing we're not doing through is playing detective and trying to figure out what race/religion/culture a person is based on what they write for us. It's not important enough to ask, just like no one has asked you about your own race/religion/cultural background.
Todd, I'm going to intentionally ignore these questions. You'll have to ask them a few more times before I respond with an unclear answer/non-response/question of my own.
The synopsis and the author's agenda aren't for you. They're for the person trying to offer a critique. It's an at-a-glance reference for what the story is about and what exactly you're looking to improve/areas of concern. The fact that you intentionally ignore it says you can't follow simple directions and you think you're above the process. It also makes the job of the person giving the critique difficult because they don't know what the hell you want.
Please, never ask for help on query letters or anything like that. If you admittedly can't follow simple instructions, you're a lost cause. I mean, you do realize this is an industry where things like format and the like actually matter, right?
Drea, they may not have souls - in fact, the few I've spent significant time with have no semblance of emotional stability either - but they do have such mouthwateringly milky white skin.
I dug this up for anyone interested in getting back to the original topic of REVIEWING, or as I like to call it, "The Rules of the Sandbox":
Review Tips
We know it can be a little intimidating to offer critique when you're new to a workshop setting. You may feel that some of the authors are so far beyond your current skill level that you can't possibly identify what would help them to improve. You may feel that others are so much in need of mechanical basics that you'd never complete the review without shreading and rearranging every sentence. The intent of the following tips is not to reduce the reviewing process to a simple formula, but to share useful and general guidelines that will see you through, regardless of perceived imbalances in knowledge and skill.
* Adopt a helpful and respectful attitude. You're not out for blood.
* Read anything you are going to review in its entirety. Maybe twice.
* Take your time with each review. Don't rush. Show an investment of time and care.
* Praise and positive statements are completely welcome. But a quick paragraph of vague encouragement or cheerleading is no substitute for a review that demonstates you've given the story a close reading.
* Make margin notes that capture your immediate responses. First reactions are valuable.
* Reflect some and develop first impressions and quick notes into a substantial review of 250-750 words.
* Develop and support your critical arguments. When you make an assertion, back it up.
* Pay close attention to the Author's Agenda and address those specific concerns.
*You can always focus on the basics, devoting a paragraph each to Characters, Dialogue, etc.
* You may also focus on Hook, Theme, Exposition, Story Arc, and so forth. Take some time to learn these terms.
* Don't expect more awesome reviews than you're giving out. But expect our patience if you're new and here to learn.
* Remember, this is a Workshop, not a place to showcase finished products. Toughen up. * * Expect criticism and receive it well.
* Separate you ego from the equation and look for ways to improve your work.
* Show gratitude that you're getting read, at all, but reserve your highest praise for reviewers who take obvious time and care with your work.
* Hesitate from posting when you're upset or angry. Bring mindfulness to every stage of the process.
* When it doubt, apply the Golden Rule to all your interactions. Treat others as you would have them treat you, because most often, they will.
I had such a hard time with this when I first started. Despite my bottomless pit of self-loathing, I also posses more ego than is healthy. Go figure.
I imagine that is one of the hardest things to let go of in this field, as writers birth babies with their creations, and no one likes being told their baby is grammatically deformed, or lacks cohesive character development. I don't have kids, but I assume this is true.
Thanks for posting that list of tips, Drea, it's always good to be reminded how not to be an oversensitive jackass.
@Strange - I should have clarified: we don't discriminate against girl rangas, just the boy rangas. Red girls steal your souls but we happily offer them up (I know one stole mine) whereas boy gingers are soul-less pits. We eradicated most of them in the great ranga roundup/cleansing of November 2011.
Generally after many critiques the criqituer asks the critiqued if they have any questions. At which point the critiqued can tell the critiquer, if they so choose, what their intention was. This allows the crtiqiuer to read the story free of influence initially, but offer additional feedback based on the author's intent; and it allows the critiqued to explain what they were going for.
The reason why I think this is more effective is because the first read-through allows the writer to know how someone may perceive their story if it was published and just out there (which probably means it's without a synopsis or author's intent). The followup allows the writer to know more specifically what they can do in order to make connections that perhaps weren't there on the page.
Oh, ok, Drea, I get it, and I'm fine with that. I have zero use for redheaded boys whatsoever. And like the good little sociopath that I am, I firmly believe things/people I have no use for need not even exist. Glad you clarified that. I was worried.
Though, I'm sad beyond words that I missed a roundup/cleansing, AGAIN. I never get to cleanse anything/anyone these days...
Or you could do what I do and request they not read my agenda until after they've read my story. So they go into it unbiassed, and then can address my personal concerns after they've read the piece. It's more convenient that way for both writer and reviewer.
HOW ABOUT WE DON'T.
This is pointless. I highly suggest you all stop beating a dead horse and end this "look at how fucking clever I am" thread. If you think anyone in here is coming away looking like a hero or a winner, you are sadly mistaken.
This drawn out nonsensical argument is the sort of thing that makes the forums look bad. Not because of Todd drawing attention to a potential "issue" (which, yes, we have all proudly jumped up and down and said he was wrong), but because it is a petty never ending argument.
I think it's about time to lock this thread up if we can't be mature enough to quit going around and around patting each other on the back and repeating the same arguments for eternity.
But if you're submitting a story for workshop rather than submitting it to lit mags for publication, that implies that you're not confident in the story's ability to be published. You're asking for help, but rather than "help us help you," as they say, you'd rather have people randomly guess what your areas of concern are under the pretense that they MIGHT follow up with you on what you actually want addressed. You're sort of cheating both parties here.
Todd - In my first comment about the transgressive essay I said it was a descriptor for a certain type of fiction, and that some consider that particular type of fiction a "genre". Your bio says you're an English teacher, so I assume you know what genre is.
As for my examples, they were all sarcastic.
As for your "picking low hanging fruit", that says so much about your ability to back anything you're saying up. If you had a strong case, you'd be able to respond to the well constructed arguments as well as the "low hanging fruit", and yes, avoiding addressing the stuff you can't twist to fit your argument IS ignoring people's points.
All this ranga rage
I guess I had it coming, being so special and all
;-(
^ me
SEVEN PAGES - only three and a bit to go, I'm so jealous. My biggest flop thread was only two posts.
What is it that you all think that you are doing? Really. Is everybody just looking for something to do?
Procrastination is really ugly when this is the result. I've already said my piece, this is just to keep my post count heading for the next milestone. At least in my challenge thread I raised situational ethics which is a way more interesting subject for me over this complete non-issue.
I've become increasingly tired of the disrespectful nature of some of these threads.
It seems that if you guys aren't fighting or bashing something the forum is dead. Is that really what this is about? Is that the point of LitReactor, to condescend and be shitty to people who disagree?
I'm shutting down this thread, and I made Flybywrite's thread a read-only for the time being, because I'd like everyone to take a minute and actually read it without just trying to come up with something sharp and witty to say in return.
Just act right. This is a writing forum. Not a debate forum. Not a place to fight.