Drowsy Snarking: Reviews, Polishing, and STANDARDS!

This post was written by a very sleepy valbot. I didn't bother to sleep last night. Apologies in advance for a post that doesn't look anything close to what an editor should write.

My problem with many reviews is not the reviewer's like or dislike of a story. My problem is the apparent lack of understanding regarding statements such as “brilliant,” “professionally written,” “a standard we all strive for,” and “I’m the best person to understand this story, because . . .”

A story muddled by appositive commas and faulty parallelism (especially one that has been "edited"), minimal creative tinkering with heavily derivative concepts, .05 dimensional characters, signposted plot twists, and cumbersome levels of blurriness throughout the narrative is NOT professionally written, brilliant, or a viable writing standard. This (well-educated, ironically) author has a chronic issue with all of the above in most of her work. Her earlier work, while not timeless, is noticeably clearer and more creative than her recent efforts. She also handled the technical aspects better before a certain proofreader got involved. This proofreader’s writing isn’t much better, but it garners the same level of glowing praise and is considered a standard.

“Professionally written” has lost much of its prestige as a compliment over the centuries. Publishers want the familiar, something they are certain will sell. Even the technical standard has loosened over recent decades. New territory, even brilliantly written new territory, is unlikely to get published by a new author. Publishing is a business, after all. Much of the groundbreaking things published these days come from authors who establish themselves with familiar, mainstream work. That is what gets an author in the door. Even so, there is a level of quality in (most) published work that is not even timidly hinted toward in this story.

Many stories garnering this compliment fall achingly short of real standards. “I loved this!” “I’d buy this if I saw it at the bookstore.” “Great work!” Aren’t those more reasonable things to say? They convey the same affection without the grating distortion or the unintended deception. Also, such statements need to be supported, even though the process is heavily subjective. WHY is a story brilliant? SHOW, using quotes and at least minimally elaborated points concerning flow and content, why a story is professionally written. EXPLAIN why a given story should be a writing standard. If you absolutely must assert yourself as the best person to understand a given work, explain why (preferably in enough detail to soften the aura of ignorance you will indelibly attach to yourself)!

No one is the “best person” to understand a story, not even the author. We all approach reading with our own backgrounds and expectations. A story may speak particularly clearly to a person if the content relates strongly to that person’s experience, but saying in a review that you are the best person to understand something is severely discrediting to the author, implies more ignorance than understanding, and is a level of arrogant I think few people wish to associate with themselves. Authors can‘t truly claim this, either: the story one intends to write and the story one actually writes often differ enough that the assessable result is more often an inkblot than a snapshot.

Internet porn is not subject to harsh criticism or to high standards, you say? Then don’t take yourself seriously as a writer. Don’t act as though you know something technical about writing. Don’t review a story of this type in the same manner as you would a novel in a literary criticism journal. So many people around here (myself included) fail to remember the difference between literature and porn. Much of what we read and enjoy within this community is porn. There are excellent writers, though, writers who craft literary erotica that is belittled when a work of porn is reviewed as a work of elegant literary art.

How insulting it must be for those who write literature to see their work adored in precisely the same terms as the work beside it that doesn’t so much as tentatively convey the same level of dedication, precision, technical skill, or creative effort! Few things piss me off more than seeing a work such as "Yellow" or "White Slavery" mewled over in the same review post as, say, something written by Lisa Teez. That is one name I have no reservations about clearly mentioning. She even acts as though she knows something about writing . . . literature. A narrative focusing on the testicular discomfort of a unicorn that a “premed” student (this student wanted to be a veterinarian!) at Fairy Tale Land University is inflicting for her own amusement is NOT literature! That is not even supermarket porn. Lisa's writing is often worse than her plots.

Those two stories and that author have never coincided in a review post, but similarly jarring juxtapositions happen in almost every update.

Many stories in the updates qualify as literature, but they are not good literature. They deserve praise for showing more effort than the pervasive, redundant porn, but that praise needs to be tempered! My grievances with the prevalent review style on the two MC forums apply also in reverse: rending a story needs to be done with support.

Hypothetically, as a technosexual, I should have squirmed with a compulsion to read one of this update's stories based on an absolutely dazzling review. I attempted to read that story. I sincerely tried to lose myself in the narrative, but I ended up getting a headache and feeling mentally drained from the boredom and irritation the experience inspired. That story is not professionally written or brilliant any more than my coffee mug is sentient! A little explication in this review might have either shown me it was a highly individualized perception not suitable as a general guide, or helped me to respect the framework of a genre I mostly dislike.

I dislike cyberpunk because most of it is startlingly horrible and clumsily derivative of itself in ways that don‘t even attempt to twist the concepts into something personal to the authors. What few good stories I’ve read have made me wish other competent writers would contribute to this genre. I am a lesbian who will read male/male cyberpunk stories that are well-written, which means I must actually adore this genre. Finding anything good is simply difficult! This is also a depressing trend for robot stories, transformation stories (robot and otherwise), and for just about any story including technophilia. What is good is glowing; what is awful—the bulk of the selection—makes me embarrassed to tell people I have these fetishes.

Privately, various people have said (even about this story): “fills a niche tolerably well.” This does fill the cyberpunk niche on the Archive tolerably well. This does not fill it brilliantly. Why don’t reviewers say these things in their actual reviews? Wouldn’t any serious writer appreciate feedback like this? Instead, the reviews are often unclear to the point of seeming to say things contradictory to what they intend. A work of “publishable quality” really meant “could fit the Fall line-up, mainstream,” not “This is such a good story!” (I asked for this reviewer’s permission to include these statements, by the way, and clarified with him that this is what he meant.)

Usually when I tell people about my mind control fetish I find myself quickly explaining that I am aware most of the stuff on the Archive is trash, even the stuff that gets glowingly praised.

Believe it or not, I don’t even like seeing my Madam’s work reviewed in this style, mewling or grumbling. A review simply mewling that her current story is glowing, well-written, or hot doesn’t really tell her anything about the story. A review saying one of her stories is better than another, or that it didn’t hit the mark, also doesn’t tell her much. Why is her story glowing? Why didn’t it hit the mark? I don’t appreciate those who delight in her work reviewing it vapidly. I would appreciate reviews even from those who dislike it if they explained why. I’d actually be grateful to them as a fan and as an editor. One review of "Coping Mechanism" (the original version, not the one linked here) did this negatively and I was glad to see the honesty. This actually helped to show the difference between the two versions and highlighted some writing weaknesses MK has since corrected.

"Unit 9" is a good example of how even negative reviews often say little about a story, to the author and to potential readers. I spent four hours tediously editing this heavily revised two-year-old story. Many of the things I found were obvious revision errors. There were immature sentence constructions and embarrassing grammatical blunders left over from her less cautious, less skilled days. That draft was a nightmare to edit but the edited version allowed the well-constructed, creepy story to shine through unencumbered. Erika also spent a while combing over this story. MK did an editing pass with my edits, then another with Erika’s.

Two passes should have been more than enough to make this story easily readable. I can’t even read the posted version because she edited it so pitifully. The massive revision errors, leftover bits of immaturity, self-indulgent lines she refused to cut, and general lack of caring (at least the posted version appears as though its author doesn’t respect it enough to clean it up) make her look ten times less skilled than she was two years ago! The STORY is intriguing, creepy, and meticulously done in some aspects. The writing severely disfigures this story.

Most of the reviews were positive; only one even lightly mentioned the decline in quality (not nearly in so much detail as might have been helpful). This is far from MK’s best work, but one would never be able to tell from most of the reviews. I suspect those who read this based on reviews, those with standards, were a bit miffed. Some solid feedback would have shown MK how this lovely story suffers from poor handling, as well as to what degree she succeeded in revising an older work into something reflecting her current writing and storytelling ability.

This incident did lead to a better editing procedure. Eri and I see each other’s edits, now, and I get a final pass after MK goes over our draft. Sometimes I get two passes after she goes over our draft if what should be my final pass reveals too many new niggles. This procedure came about mostly through my offline snarking. Some informative reviews would have done wonders to nullify the need for me to be the one to nip MK. I felt guilty for doing that even though I knew it was necessary. That story was written for me; being the one to come down so harshly about it was a bit uncouth. I was grateful for Grey's honest, even if not unquestionably clear, review. His reviews are brief. Others do lengthier reviews while failing to touch the blunt points he at least mentions.

Several people make the effort to review every story. If they would do this more clearly, and honestly, this could drastically improve the overall quality of the updates. Two reviewers do have a blunt style, but one is the unclear example from earlier and the other has a tendency to mewl if the name is one she relishes. I do admire both of them for sometimes cracking down on the Lisa Teez rung of authors, though!

Please respect your work enough to polish it. I’ve read some less-than-well-written stories I could still respect for the obvious amount of effort and passion the author invested (Omega Girl, for one). There is NO excuse for a skilled author who does have tools and experience to post something so unpolished as “Unit 9.“ A few honest, well-thought reviews would have served as a good lesson to MK, and to other writers, on the need for clarity and caution.

This really was going to be a review post!

My review of "Paradise" is mixed; I see my review of "Scribe and Shadow" being the same. I should try reading other colors. I can sometimes appreciate purple and, as previously mentioned, cyan. Cyan doesn’t seem appropriate to review in a lesbian HypnoDomme’s blog, though. I’ll save that for the next remarkably good cyan technofetish story. Maybe I should review the two that made me pay attention to that color in the updates. I mostly read red, but the recent red has been tepid.

I rant like this because I adore this fetish and the good writing devoted to its lavishing and exploration. Fiction is a medium in which these often dark and unethical concepts are safe to explore as fully as one can fantasize. I want to do in my own reviews what I feel the others lack. I want to provide detailed feedback, positive and negative, and I want to be honest!

My review style will likely be clumsy at first. I will start with MK’s work; I can use something familiar to me so that my focus can be on working out a good style while not having to worry so much about understanding the stories. I work with them enough to not have the need for rigid concentration reviewing other stories will demand. This is a service, I think, not a cop-out. MK knows how I feel about her work. Using it to form my style means other authors will get better feedback in a refined format instead of the awkward early format I’ll likely need to adjust.

I would love feedback on what types of reviews authors would find helpful. I am a snarky bitch, I can’t tame that, but I will be honest in a constructive way. Tell me if you don't want me to review your work. You probably don't need to worry if you don't write red or anything related to science fiction or robots. I will niggle a bit over technicality—I'm always in editor mode, I can't help it!—but not as the focus.

I’ll make a post at some point following the general format of the Readers' Picks section on the Archive. Some of the stories I crave to praise in detail are obscure.

My introduction post did note my proclivity for rambling.

A real review post will come this Saturday. Madam can spark what little remains of my mind into oblivion if not! Bedtime for valbot.

~Valbot