Dawn Felagund (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dawn_felagund) wrote2006-02-08 03:00 pm
dawn_felagund) wrote2006-02-08 03:00 pm
Entry tags:
To Review or Not to Review? That Is the Question....
Recently, I have been batting around the idea of submitting one of my short stories for archive review at HASA. So why is this a big deal? Just do it, right, Dawn?
The problem is that I have always made such a big loud noise about how I don't agree with processes that claim to judge what is "quality" fiction, something that is made even worse online, where even "blind" submissions are often easily recognized as belonging to a certain author and therefore prone (in my opinion) to greater bias than a review by true strangers.
For example, many of you have stories that I would know as yours the moment I read them or read the titles, even, in certain circumstances. I admit that I would find it hard to separate my feelings for you as a friend or an individual from my judgement of a story. And the opposite is unfortunately also true: I am sure that there are people in the Tolkien fanfic community who would decline one of my stories just because it was written by me. (None of these people, as far as I know, belong to HASA. If they do, they are not active over there.) And it's not hard to know what stories belong to me. Go to my "short story" tag and there's a list right there.
Besides that, I simply don't agree that even a huge pool of reviewers have a right to decide what is or is not quality. Now I've had it brought up to me before: But Dawn, you are an editor for a literary magazine. And you have been a fiction editor before and had the difficulty of actually choosing the "best" stories from a pool of submissions. Yes, but I see this as different. A literary magazine, to me, is nothing but a collection of pieces that the editor(s) find particularly good. It is the editor's opinions, certainly not a declaration of quality at large. Were you to read the same pool of stories as me, you would probably "rate" some differently than I do. And a literary magazine, also, includes a certain kind of fiction. A story from the genre of science fiction might be excellent to readers of science fiction, but I don't think that it would ever appear in The Praire Schooner. Not because it's bad but because they don't publish that kind of fiction.
But archives that require a "review" to get in on the premise of only wanting to accept fiction of "quality" are, in my opinion, assuming that a team of reviewers can make such a judgement. Even the most atrocious blue-haired, purple-irised, unicorn-riding "Mary Sue" would be good fiction to someone. On the other hand, a dense, psychologically-based story dealing with the Elven view of mortality might breeze into most archives...but there would be readers who would hate it. There are doubtlessly readers who hate my stories, who think that I'm long-winded, blathering, and--at times--pompous (they're certainly right on the first two counts...I'm not so sure that I can count as pompous, though), and I know there are people who love my stories. Who's right? Who's to same I write quality fiction...or not?
And so I've always assumed that I would avoid archives that "review" stories for inclusion. But recently, I want to give it a try, for a couple of reasons.
So that's where I stand. I'm interested in people's opinions on this.
But if you'd rather give me your opinion anonymously (and just because they're fun and I'm paying for the ability to use them), here's a poll:
[Poll #669291]
Now that it's 3 o'clock and I've done my blathering for the day, I will stop procrastinating and do some writing.
The problem is that I have always made such a big loud noise about how I don't agree with processes that claim to judge what is "quality" fiction, something that is made even worse online, where even "blind" submissions are often easily recognized as belonging to a certain author and therefore prone (in my opinion) to greater bias than a review by true strangers.
For example, many of you have stories that I would know as yours the moment I read them or read the titles, even, in certain circumstances. I admit that I would find it hard to separate my feelings for you as a friend or an individual from my judgement of a story. And the opposite is unfortunately also true: I am sure that there are people in the Tolkien fanfic community who would decline one of my stories just because it was written by me. (None of these people, as far as I know, belong to HASA. If they do, they are not active over there.) And it's not hard to know what stories belong to me. Go to my "short story" tag and there's a list right there.
Besides that, I simply don't agree that even a huge pool of reviewers have a right to decide what is or is not quality. Now I've had it brought up to me before: But Dawn, you are an editor for a literary magazine. And you have been a fiction editor before and had the difficulty of actually choosing the "best" stories from a pool of submissions. Yes, but I see this as different. A literary magazine, to me, is nothing but a collection of pieces that the editor(s) find particularly good. It is the editor's opinions, certainly not a declaration of quality at large. Were you to read the same pool of stories as me, you would probably "rate" some differently than I do. And a literary magazine, also, includes a certain kind of fiction. A story from the genre of science fiction might be excellent to readers of science fiction, but I don't think that it would ever appear in The Praire Schooner. Not because it's bad but because they don't publish that kind of fiction.
But archives that require a "review" to get in on the premise of only wanting to accept fiction of "quality" are, in my opinion, assuming that a team of reviewers can make such a judgement. Even the most atrocious blue-haired, purple-irised, unicorn-riding "Mary Sue" would be good fiction to someone. On the other hand, a dense, psychologically-based story dealing with the Elven view of mortality might breeze into most archives...but there would be readers who would hate it. There are doubtlessly readers who hate my stories, who think that I'm long-winded, blathering, and--at times--pompous (they're certainly right on the first two counts...I'm not so sure that I can count as pompous, though), and I know there are people who love my stories. Who's right? Who's to same I write quality fiction...or not?
And so I've always assumed that I would avoid archives that "review" stories for inclusion. But recently, I want to give it a try, for a couple of reasons.
- I just want to see if it would be accepted. I'm curious. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but satisfaction brought him back.
- I can't help but feel that I am pompous or prideful to assume that I am making some kind of impact by witholding my work from certain archives. Like the staff of these archives are wringing their hands even as I type this and considering revising their admission guidelines solely because Dawn Felagund doesn't agree with them, and they are somehow incomplete if they don't get stories by Dawn Felagund posted there. Hmph.
- I want an audience for my work. And HASA is one of the most-read Tolkien archives, so to have my work there would be a good thing. (And eventually other "review" archives as well.)
- Am I really compromising my principles to submit my work? I do not do reviews, not because I'm lazy or I do not wish to help other authors get into archives but because a) I do not trust myself to be fair in reviewing the work of a friend or someone well known to me and b) I do not believe that I have any right to determine what is quality fiction. But to submit one's work...is that really in violation of my belief that the system is wrong? I also do not agree with using standardized tests for admission into universities, but I have taken both the SAT and GRE, scored well on both, and am proud of my work. It doesn't mean that I am agreeing that standardized tests are appropriate admissions standards. It is simply something that I had to do to achieve a greater goal: getting into the university I wanted to attend. A necessary evil, to borrow the cliche.
So that's where I stand. I'm interested in people's opinions on this.
But if you'd rather give me your opinion anonymously (and just because they're fun and I'm paying for the ability to use them), here's a poll:
[Poll #669291]
Now that it's 3 o'clock and I've done my blathering for the day, I will stop procrastinating and do some writing.
no subject
Yes it is. And if it was declared as such--"an archive selected by our members," for example--then that would be fine. Kind of like an award: something given by a specific audience in recognition of that audience's notion of quality. But visiting the site, I saw tons of mentions of accepting "high quality" work and rejecting work that is not "interesting," "well written," or that is "frivolous." In the FAQ, there was one line that expressed how you put it: 'What we do at HASA is say 'Here are stories a number of our members liked a great deal. We think you will like them, too!'" But the rest of the site focuses on its inclusion of only "high quality work," with the assumption that the review procedure is qualified to make that judgement.
Which I don't think is a judgement that can be made by a group of nine...or a group of any size.
But the majority of members at HASA does want a public archive that is not open for general posting. If that is what the majority wants, it seems to me that a polled decision based on the individual opinions of random readers is a pretty valid and fair way of arriving at such a decision.
Sure. I'd be hard-pressed to find a better method and, as I've said, I don't think that anyone considers my opinion worthy of "OMG! We must change the system because Dawn protests!" That'd be nice but.... (I'm just kidding! :^P)
My problem with it comes back to using that "poll" as equating to a judgement of quality. Every site has the right to determine their own archive criteria, and I don't deny HASA that just as I hope HASA will not deny the SWG archive the right to post any work that we want...but I take issue with the notion that such a selection denotes quality. And that's just my own issue...my own opinion.
Personally I definitely prefer open posting to all those different submission procedures. Allow people to write and post what they want within the limits of the law.
Totally agreed. I love being pleasantly surprised by something new, something I never thought I'd like. And it seems to foster a much friendlier, comfortable environment, at least in my experiences.
*joins you in raising glass the the Pit of Voles!* Long live ff.net! :)
no subject
But if the members of an archive site don't want to allow open posting, who will be able to decide?
I don't think that a group consisting of the site owner and maybe a few friends will be fair in the long run, no matter how good their intentions are. Cliquish behaviour is kind of inevitable that way.
Phrasing of stuff at HASA - well, it's writing. There's no perfect writing and God knows a lot of the stuff at HASA could do with some rephrasing. Why don't you post some of your ideas in the suggestions forum? If all the good ideas and constructive criticism remains outside HASA forever, nothing is going to change. And you are a part of that community, after all. :-)
no subject
I could not agree with you more. I was once told by a friend (with whom I no longer associate) that my stories would be popular in a certain archive because I was friends with the "right" people. And when that friendship fell through, the majority of the group divorced me, one by one. I suppose my writing will no longer be popular there.
(Of course, now I'm bound and determined to post my work there...just to be evol. >:^]] )
I think that for a selective archive, the HASA system is about as good as it gets. It's double blind, which I like because--although not foolproof--it certainly discourages selection for reasons of friendship or retaliation while encouraging honest responses. My problem comes with the wording on the site, that this methodology in some way assures quality. And I do not believe that it does.
I have no problem with archives where work is selected by the archive's members. But it should be phrased as just that. While reading the "About" and "FAQ" sections last night, I was cringing a bit because I could see how people might read the site as being snobby. Work that gets in his "high quality" and "well written"; work that does not is "frivolous."
Why don't you post some of your ideas in the suggestions forum?
I will look into this. Thank you. :)