I think you have a problem with the attitudes of people who review.
No. I don't. I can't have a problem with the attitudes of people who review, never having experienced said attitudes. 99% of my experiences with people from HASA have been positive, which is not something I can say of other archives which I occasionally visit.
My problem is with the notion that a group of people--no matter how large, small, experienced, or inexperienced--can judge "quality." Archives place restrictions on what works they accept in order to assure a certain level of "quality" are--in my opinion--taking something upon themselves that no individual can do. Quality means many different things to different people, and I don't believe that 9 or 9 million readers can accurately label a work as quality or not.
So... I think it's a bit unfair to single the reviewers at HASA out and assume that they are people who believe that they can pass judgement about submitted stories as if they were "an absolute truth".
I said to Jenni above that I do not mean to be unfair to HASA. It is the place to which I am currently considering sending my work, and I could change "HASA" to "OSA" or "SoA" or anything else, and my point would be the same: I do not think that any person can be a judge of "quality" aside from their own personal opinions. This is my opinion. You (or anyone) is welcome to disagree with me and as vocally as you like.
Nor did I mean it to be brought down to the individual level, to label people who review for archives as Bad People (tm). Do I think this? Of course not! I have a problem with the system and, again, people are welcome to disagree with me. Obviously, I don't think that you are a bad person with bad intentions for reviewing, nor would I place that label upon anyone else individually. But this doesn't change my view that no review system can accurately gauge quality.
I am one of those reviewers. A couple of other people on your flist are or have been reviewers there, too.
And that's every individual's choice and one that I respect. My problem with a system does not mean that I have a problem with the people who use it. I'm really quite baffled that this seems (to me) to be taken as a personal attack when it was not intended that way. If people like such a system and want to utilize it, that is their right and I respect their right to that opinion. Mine just happens to differ. There is nothing personal intended in that.
On what can quality be based in your opinion?
I see a difference between quality in my opinion and quality in general. For me to say that I find a story quality in my opinion is fine...but I don't presume that my opinion should then be extended as a general view on quality...or lack thereof.
It happens that I find most "Mary Sues" to be low quality in that I, as an individual, would not wish to read them. But for me to slap a label of "low quality" upon such a story and declare it as unfit for a certain archive is a leap that I personally am not willing to make.
Other archives: certain genres may not be submitted at all, such as "Tenth Walker", "girl falls into Middle-earth", "slash"; OCs may only be submitted if they are not "Mary Sues".
Ah. Having read the guidelines at OSA in an age long past, that does sound familiar. (I'm sure I've read it at SoA too...but that age has passed beyond memory!) Need I say that I agree that this is unfair, given my attitudes on accepting things into archives? :^P But then, I tend to dislike labeling stories in general. It reminds me too much of the "literary"/"genre" label that people throw around in the non-fanfic world as an excuse to exclude certain stories.
But again, there are people on my flist who are active at SoA and OSA. Just because I disagree with some of the policies of their communities does not mean that I think less of them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rosecarmine
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-08 11:02 pm (UTC)No. I don't. I can't have a problem with the attitudes of people who review, never having experienced said attitudes. 99% of my experiences with people from HASA have been positive, which is not something I can say of other archives which I occasionally visit.
My problem is with the notion that a group of people--no matter how large, small, experienced, or inexperienced--can judge "quality." Archives place restrictions on what works they accept in order to assure a certain level of "quality" are--in my opinion--taking something upon themselves that no individual can do. Quality means many different things to different people, and I don't believe that 9 or 9 million readers can accurately label a work as quality or not.
So... I think it's a bit unfair to single the reviewers at HASA out and assume that they are people who believe that they can pass judgement about submitted stories as if they were "an absolute truth".
I said to Jenni above that I do not mean to be unfair to HASA. It is the place to which I am currently considering sending my work, and I could change "HASA" to "OSA" or "SoA" or anything else, and my point would be the same: I do not think that any person can be a judge of "quality" aside from their own personal opinions. This is my opinion. You (or anyone) is welcome to disagree with me and as vocally as you like.
Nor did I mean it to be brought down to the individual level, to label people who review for archives as Bad People (tm). Do I think this? Of course not! I have a problem with the system and, again, people are welcome to disagree with me. Obviously, I don't think that you are a bad person with bad intentions for reviewing, nor would I place that label upon anyone else individually. But this doesn't change my view that no review system can accurately gauge quality.
I am one of those reviewers. A couple of other people on your flist are or have been reviewers there, too.
And that's every individual's choice and one that I respect. My problem with a system does not mean that I have a problem with the people who use it. I'm really quite baffled that this seems (to me) to be taken as a personal attack when it was not intended that way. If people like such a system and want to utilize it, that is their right and I respect their right to that opinion. Mine just happens to differ. There is nothing personal intended in that.
On what can quality be based in your opinion?
I see a difference between quality in my opinion and quality in general. For me to say that I find a story quality in my opinion is fine...but I don't presume that my opinion should then be extended as a general view on quality...or lack thereof.
It happens that I find most "Mary Sues" to be low quality in that I, as an individual, would not wish to read them. But for me to slap a label of "low quality" upon such a story and declare it as unfit for a certain archive is a leap that I personally am not willing to make.
Other archives: certain genres may not be submitted at all, such as "Tenth Walker", "girl falls into Middle-earth", "slash"; OCs may only be submitted if they are not "Mary Sues".
Ah. Having read the guidelines at OSA in an age long past, that does sound familiar. (I'm sure I've read it at SoA too...but that age has passed beyond memory!) Need I say that I agree that this is unfair, given my attitudes on accepting things into archives? :^P But then, I tend to dislike labeling stories in general. It reminds me too much of the "literary"/"genre" label that people throw around in the non-fanfic world as an excuse to exclude certain stories.
But again, there are people on my flist who are active at SoA and OSA. Just because I disagree with some of the policies of their communities does not mean that I think less of them.