On developing news...
By Rommel
Genre: Blog

Comment 1. February 3, 2008 | Posted By: | Edit | Delete
The EFO QC agrees that your story was handled inappropriately. The way we handled your fic and the length of time that it took us to deal with it is unacceptable. We're sorry for anything we've said that may have lead you to feel as if you've personally been attacked. In the future we plan to restrict our role to the critiquing of stories, and not the critiquing of authors. We apologize for the inconvenience we've caused you and want you and everyone else to know that we're taking measures to stop such things from happening again.

After the error with Power Plays, we've created several new rules with which we hope to curtail future problems. First, comment sending will now be delayed until a fic has reached the acceptance or rejection quota, preventing any perceivable comment changes. Secondly, a first in first out rule will now be enforced. This means that the first story entered into the QC will be the first story out, unless there are extenuating circumstances.

These new rules stated, we'd like to also mention that we intend to be as flexible as possible in the future. Suggestions to or criticisms of EFO and the QC will be considered.

Again, we apologize for any and all errors that occurred while processing your story. We hope that you'll continue to submit to EFO in the future.

~The EFO QC
Comment 2. January 29, 2008 | Posted By: | Edit | Delete
I really wanted to wait before posting a comment here, especially since I had my own issued to handle first with 2 members of EFO QC and wanted to keep both issues separated.

However I will gladly comment on the review given to you by IO and C:

I think C should have waited; you d not send a review or letter of acceptance to someone and then take it out or back way. It speaks poorly of one's own rationalization. Saying or covering your back with "I really wanted to hate it/not accept it" and then going "Oh, guess what? I honestly forgot about a rule that says..." tells someone reading it that the reviewer looked for anyway to walk out from making the choice, after all, PR101 is "You don't tell someone something and then take it back in a professional environment."

As for IO's review, this one is a bit trickier due to this not being the first time I give a rebuttal a review given by him, but it also has to do with the fact that he is a S/R writer, and I am a S/A writer, so, let me start by saying this is not a personal attack on pairings or otherwise; it is however a critique on IO's review; it sounds patronizing, almost as if you were wagging your finger at someone for doing something.

Last I knew, one shouldn't put in reviews stuff like :

"You know, you're not a bad writer at all, Rommel. But having skills is one thing, and having a certain degree of taste is another."

I consider that an uncalled and petty personal attack on a writer, not on his skill, ending it with "It's a shame, because I honestly think you can do a lot better than this, and I don't want you to take this rejection as a putdown, because it's clear that you *can* write. Your characterization is quite good and your spelling and grammar is pretty clean for the most part. But if your only purpose with this work is to titillate and shock the reader, than post it on mediaminer with my blessing. And if you can come up with something that handles mature themes more... maturely, then by all means send it our
way."

That tells me that IO lost track of the inner work of the story by focusing on the

lemon, and if one says stuff like "Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against lemons in general (although I wouldn't exactly list them as a favorite genre)." then I would think there is an unjust bias towards the story to begin with. Eva is a complex story, it reflects life, and sadly, whether we want to accept it or not, sex IS a huge part of life, so are the various kinks of other people and if one writes "verite" style then that should reflect all of life; if you don't like a lemon, you simply don't comment, but by
criticizing it, you have to put your feelings aside, something, that sadly, IO apparently didn't do.

Other than that, yeah: the waiting period needs to be dealt with, there should be a better mechanism to prevent "taksies-backsies" Like C's double post, and reviews should, IMO, focus on the technical writing, and lose the patronizing way IO's review seems to have in an overall.

And I'm saying that as a potential submitter, not a jaded author with a past or a wheel to grind against EFO.

Add Comment




Remember comment details?
Yes No





Clicking on the comment textbox below will activate a graphical editor, please wait.

Reminder: Don't make an ass of yourself. Stupid comments will be removed.

 

Copyright © 2001-2008 Darkscribes.org
1,838,759 people have visited this site.
Page generated in 0.153 seconds. | 9 MySQL queries were executed.
Terms of Service
Hosted by RochenHost at Colo4Dallas.
Powered by the Darkscribes Story Management System, Copyright Thomas R. Parkison 2008-2009.