![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
Tags:
(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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-08 11:23 pm (UTC)Ummm.
But the system is not based on "quality in general" or the assumption that there is something like "the absolute standard of quality in fanfiction".
Actually, the system is based exactly on what you mention: It is based on quality according to the opinion of each individual reviewer, with the final decision relying on the principle of majority.
There's no perfect system, and in my opinion there is no such thing as "objective quality" of any kind. But I do value the random 5 to 9 individual decisions of average readers, based on their individual opinions of quality.
People complain about wrong or right decisions... I guess when it comes down to it, there are no right or wrong decisions there, just as there's no "objective or absolute quality". 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.
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.
Here's to FFNet!!!!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 12:54 am (UTC)I would take issue with the small sample size, and I think this is--to some extent--where Dawn is going with her HASA-issues. 5 or 9 people isn't a whole lot in determining an on/off scenario of any kind. It's like me calling up 5 random people and asking their opinion on same-sex marriage. Extrapolated across 350 million (the population of the US), those 5 people probably wouldn't be representative of "average everybodys" out there. What if my "random" cold calling got me 5 people in Texas? That's a mathematical possibility, but I'd hope the opinions of Texans aren't representative of the entire US population.
Now I suppose if your story is really good and really mainstream, 5 approvals wouldn't be a problem. But then there are also 5 people who probably wouldn't "get" an experimental piece, good or not. That doesn't mean it's not good; it just means that the first, random 5 people to stumble across it and make judgments for an entire community didn't like it.
That's tough, IMHO.
Sorry to kick up a debate with someone I barely know. *Hiding*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 02:36 am (UTC)Ah, another social science person! :^P
But then there are also 5 people who probably wouldn't "get" an experimental piece, good or not.
This is true. I find most fanfic to be relatively straightforward, "traditional" literature...which I suppose makes it treacherous going for one who does experiment!
It kind of goes back to what
An open archive, in my humble opinion, leaves people with the freedom to experiment...and mess up. And eventually succeed. It makes people more confident to write in their own voices. At least, I find this to be true.
And it gives readers the chance to experiment too with stories and styles they've never read before.
*raises glass again to the Pit of Voles* Wow, if I keep going like this, I'm going to be drunk before the night is out! :^P
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 08:56 am (UTC)About what gets accepted... I've been a volunteer there for more than a year now, and I have seen just about everything accepted. It would work better if more people were willing to review, if the reviewer pool would really mirror the opinions of all members. *sigh*
All in all I think if a site doesn't allow open posting, it's fairer than having the site owner and her friends decide on a whim... because if someone happens not to get along with that clique, she'll have a hard time to get in no matter how wonderful her writing is.
I know why I definitely prefer completely open sites.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 02:27 am (UTC)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)
Date: 2006-02-09 09:06 am (UTC)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)
Date: 2006-02-09 03:04 pm (UTC)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. :)