Persephone Kore posted: If I'm faced with a note about, say, intentional sentence fragments, what I'm most likely to do is try to decide whether I would have been able to figure that out on my own. And I suspect (somewhat uneasily) that since I didn't have the chance to figure it out on my own, and since the author wasn't confident that I'd recognize it on my own, I might be more doubtful than otherwise. Generally speaking, an unusual stylistic choice probably shouldn't require explanation, or at least not any more explanation than would reasonably appear in the summary. It's true that individual perceptions will sometimes differ.
Herman Snerd posted:Like PA said, the editors don't currently have the ability to modify the pages ourselves. Without getting into specifics, we're pretty much at the mercy of TFN staff for certain elements of tech support.
Persephone_Kore posted:I think, however, that it's important for the reviewers to consider the story based on what the reader is going to see if it's accepted. The reader is not, for one thing, going to see a note to the reviewers at the top of the story. The stylistic choices of the author are going to have to stand or fall based on the effect they produce.
Gabri_Jade posted:Regarding author's notes: As has been mentioned, if an author really feels the need to explain something about the story, go ahead and include a note at the top of the file.
Gabri_Jade posted:However, PA and Luton_Plunder have made very good points on this subject. It's usually quite obvious when an author's departed from standard practice on purpose - think ee cummings, for example. A reader may or may not appreciate that style, but I doubt any reader ever really read those poems and believed that cummings just forgot to add punctuation and capitalization. Similarly, I'd venture to say that the vast majority of the time, reviewers realize when an author chose to deliberately disregard certain grammatical rules.
Gabri_Jade posted:Thus, if the reviewers recognize that the style is deliberate but it just doesn't work for them, artistically speaking, then the note was unnecessary to begin with. If they honestly can't figure out whether or not it was deliberate without being told that it was, then more tweaking probably needs to be done. If you submit such a story and have it rejected, I strongly suggest asking the reviewers for feedback. They can tell you whether their reaction was the former or the latter, which will help you decide whether or not to make changes before resubmitting.
Gabri_Jade posted:It might be worth pointing out that should the reviewers recognize a deliberate stylistic choice but still reject, the rejection note will probably still say "spelling/grammar errors".
Gabri_Jade posted:This doesn't automatically mean that the reviewers didn't understand what you did. Remember that while the reviewers write notes telling the editors what did or didn't work for them with each story, it's the editors who choose what rejection reasons go in a letter, and we're working with a standard laundry list. We do have the ability to put "other" on the list, and sometimes we do - "other: POV shifts, tense shifts", for example. But since that final decision letter is supposed to lean toward brevity and professionalism, we're a lot more likely to choose the "spelling/grammar errors" option than to write in, "other: reviewers felt grammatical style choices did not adequately achieve artistic goal". "Grammar" in the reviewer notes, for whatever reason, will generally translate into "grammar" on the letter, too. Again, if you wonder whether or not the reviewers understood what you were getting at, ask them. Most of the time we'll be happy to answer.
ardavenport posted:I do hope you have list somewhere of things in the Archives that need to be fixed, at least a mental one, for whenever the techs smile in the Archives' direction. Dead links and old info tends to accumulate like dust bunnies and pretty soon, before you know it, you've got allergies.
ardavenport posted:The Archive reviewers have generally been very generous with their time when I ask for clarification on a rejection. And I always ask. But I was surprised when one reviewer told me that maybe one in twenty writers asked for feedback for a rejection.
ardavenport posted: But again, if that is OK then the Archive guidelines should explicitly say that this is permissible. How does an author, especially a young one, know that putting a note or a cover letter at the beginning of the story is OK? That it won't lead to an automatic rejection for wasting the reviewer's time?
ardavenport posted: Aaaaaaaaaaah, but how does the author know what the reviewer realizes?
ardavenport posted: While the note may be unnecessary for the reviewer, it may still be necessary for the writer.
ardavenport posted: And that's OK????? Sending a message, in which the stated reasons for that rejection aren't true? And the author is left to e-mail to find out what the real reason is?
ardavenport posted:It really is the Archives' responsibility to be accurate about why they are rejecting a story. Otherwise, the editorial process, the standards for acceptance/rejection, really do look murky and random. Suddenly, the one in twenty requests for feedback on rejections is not surprising at all.
ardavenport posted: That's just scary. It is incredibly UNprofessional to send any rejection with reasons listed that are NOT why the story was rejected. Again, it's scary. I can only hope that it doesn't happen too often.
