Jason Sensation ([info]lifeofjason) wrote in [info]heroeslj,
@ 2005-04-24 12:42:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
On Writing And Constructive Criticism
From the one and only Megan Curtis ([info]mcurtis):

So all of you know that I write fanfiction... not lately, but I do! I try to read it and I checked out a new author hoping that it was going to be good. I expected alot. It was good. But it wasn't great and I wanted it to be great! I wanted it to be stelar! I wanted it to blow me away. I'm sad that it didn't.

I wrote them an e-mail that said I read their issue, it was good and I hoped for something else. God! Anything else! Part of me wants Sophism back. The best thing that happened was after my first issue of SHIELD, Sophism reviewed Mrev. I know it ripped some people apart but I was so damn grateful for mine. Best reality check ever and the fact that I didn't get ripped too hard, damn good ego boost. It made me write better. It made me want to turn that grade they gave me (I got a C) into something better. It also made me realize that I was writing for me and noone else so all the points of my issue that I didn't like got a red flag from Mr. Alex Cook. If I didn't like it, why should my audience? Oh how to impart this wonderful wisdom on the new youth of fanfiction? *sigh*

(Post a new comment)


[info]morlocks
2005-04-24 06:49 pm UTC (link)
We the new youth are hopeless...move along. ;)

You know, I'd give an arm and leg to have SOPHISM back. I was still a lurker when they were in their prime, but as a reader, I thought that their views were insightful, but also they weren't law. There was this big stink about their brutality affecting outlook on sites and stuff. As solely a reader back then, I can say it didn't happen. Sure they offered an opinion, but only those of SOPHISM.

I guess, that's why when I send in my things to be flash-edited by peers, I select ones I know will give it to me rough like SOPHISM would have. I need that. Other writers need that, even if they don't want to admit it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]john_flint
2005-04-24 07:50 pm UTC (link)
Let's bring SOPHISM back. If people cry, oh well.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lifeofjason
2005-04-24 08:01 pm UTC (link)
Any return of SOPHISM must be a return to its original mission, thurough critical reviews that provided constructive criticism of a site and its stories for the sake of improvement, not the shitstorm that many think it became later. A review can be supercritical as long as it still provides an author with the how-to's on improving.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: On Writing And Constructive Criticism
(Anonymous)
2005-04-24 07:58 pm UTC (link)
From the brilliantly humble Stephen Crosby who loves oxymorons, or just morons in general (:

Hunh, I gotta say I agree with what Megan says. Don't get me wrong, I can't get enough of hearing how brilliant my work is, but solid constructive critism is what makes me grow as a writer. After I'd written one of my first stories Ralph Angelo posted a review saying how my voice kept changing all over the place, that it looked like I'd written one section then handed the keyboard over to somebody else. He was right, and since then I've tried to maintain a more cohesive one-voice feel to my stories.

I admit I don't review the stories I read as much as I should, but whenever I chat with a writer whose stories I'd recently I end up giving some critism, and occassionally I think I get a little harsh. I actually find it a little better giving the critism in that kind of back-and-forth environment. You get a better idea of what the writer was going for, what was going on in the writer's mind at the time and even learn how to write better yourself.
Yes, we must bring Sophism back. Good luck finding a pack of reviewers willing to take the abuse, but if so then god damn them and god bless them.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: On Writing And Constructive Criticism
(Anonymous)
2007-10-26 10:17 pm UTC (link)
Hey Stephen! How are you? I hope yopu didn't consider my review harsh back in the day, becasue it wasn't meant to be so. Glad to see you are still writing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]lifeofjason
2005-04-24 08:09 pm UTC (link)
I think that there is a severe lack of constructive criticism out there in general. Reviews are great, but many of what happen seem to be more hype than actual evaluation of the work. What SOPHISM provided as an actual breakdown of series into each part and then a critique on all of that. It was a look at the nuts and bolts as well as the sum of the work and you don't get that much anymore.

Derrick provides it, but, really, everyone else is a little too brief in their reviews to really start to pick things apart. And I think that comes down to what's being reviewed, a single issue (what others do), an entire series (what Derrick does) or an entire site (what SOPHISM did).

Single issue reviews are all well and good, but, as I said above, they come across more as hype than anything. There is no critical analysis of what they entail overall, just what's right there in front of you. It's a drive by on the story and does nothing to really help the series progress.

Series reviews are great because they look at the entire body of work, evaluating how they have progressed (or regressed), what the strenghts of the author and the work are and what the weaknesses are. People can have bad issues, or bad dialogue here and there, but you can only really get a feel for a writer and their story when you look at the whole thing.

Site reviews go one step further and look at how the entire tapestry of the site is working out. We all work in shared continuities, each series being part of a whole that everyone's working on. A site review finds what's working, what's not, where the weak points are and what the site can do to fix it. It also can entail a critique on the design, something MANY sites need to face because there are a lot of issues out there with site design and presentation.

The return of SOPHISM would be great if it was a return to what it was originally created for, constructive criticism of a site for the sake of its own future and growth, instead of the mess it was viewed as becoming. But I think baby steps might be necessary, moving away from these single issue reviews and into the series reviews that Derrick provided. Then we might see some progress.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]morlocks
2005-04-24 10:41 pm UTC (link)
It also can entail a critique on the design, something MANY sites need to face because there are a lot of issues out there with site design and presentation.

I so need to give a free seminar to EiCs about proper site design. It's a sad state of affairs that fanfic sites in general have got to be one of the lowest forms of design on the net.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lifeofjason
2005-04-24 10:54 pm UTC (link)
Raz, if you wanted to make a sorta basic pointers on site design I'd be more than happy to include it here on the HEROES LJ. Something sorta like my intro to HTML, nothing drastic, just basic "don't make the images huge", "make sure people can read stuff", "for god's sake, white type and red links on a black background do not make you badass!", stuff like that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2005-04-25 08:00 pm UTC (link)
Brent Lambert here. Well seeing as how most of my reviews are single issue ones I don't see how they are all taken as hyping up an issue rather than reviewing it. If you have examples I'll be more than glad to hear them. Cuz I'd like to know how I can do my reviews better. But when I'm writing them I honestly do think I'm critiquing the issue in a good manner. If I'm not doing that please point out to me how I can change that.

If the solution is to read whole series before doing a review tho I'll have to disagree with that for a few reasons. One, I think its entirely possible to help a series move along and progress by just reviewing one issue. I pointed out to David Ingram in one issue something and it really hasn't happened since I pointed it out (not saying what it is cuz I don't want to bust him out publicly). I have numerous examples of though of when I've pointed something out in a single issue review that hasn't happened again later. In fact I think you help things progress quicker when doing single issue reviews. We also have to remember one thing. Doing reviews of whole series at a time is time consuming and doesn't help much to spread the reviewing love if you get what i'm saying. When only one or two people are ever actually reviewing on a regular basis its not going to let everyone get a review who wants one anyway. Let alone if all the reviews are reviews of the whole series.

And this is where I get critical. Cuz its something that's been bugging me for a bit. Its easy as hell to sit on your ass and talk about how reviews need to kick up, get more into the nuts and bolts etc. It's a whole other thing altogether to get off your butt and do reviews of your own illustrating exactly what it is that you want to see in a review. As it stands now if a review goes up everybody should be up praising the guy for taking the time to do it. Cuz 98% of the fanfic population isnt. If you want something you gotta do it for yourself. That's the only way things are going to change. SOPHISM worked (despite your opinion of it) because they did what they wanted to do and didn't just talk about what they wanted to do. I firmly believe in being a man (or woman) of action. So you guys want change...well then make it happen. Because as it stands now I just see all this as a bunch of smoke being blown out by thinkers and not doers. If that sounds a bit crass forgive me, but it can be irritating when you're doing a service that few others want to do and are getting critiqued for it. But I can move past that irritation and take the advice if its sound. Just lay it on me folks. What do you want to see?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]pollards_picks
2005-04-26 03:40 pm UTC (link)
I don't think it's necessary to read a whole series before writing a review of it. I've done it once or twice, but that's because I wanted to. I prefer to review whole story-arcs, though, because that way I get the full story.

This isn't to say the way I write reviews is for everyone, but for me, reviewing part one of a three-part story is like reviewing only the first half-hour of a ninety minute film.

How you write reviews is completely up to you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]voxsola
2005-04-25 01:45 am UTC (link)
People seem to forget that Sophism wasn't just about reviews.
It's almost a slap in the face to those who wrote articles and editorials to forget Sophism was more than just finger pointing and (later) offensive remarks.

From the aspect of reviews and crticism, the whole thing is sort of moot without a standard scale, I think. I shyed away from reviews eventually because it was all very subjective and who was I to rate someone else's work when my work was far from perfect? I would have liked things to be a little more objective and a lot less elitist, personally.

(Reply to this)


[info]phactorri
2005-04-25 03:57 am UTC (link)
could someone explain this thing to us people who are still "noobs".

I assume Sophism was a person(or group) who did constructive cricism for fic stories? sounds like a good idea.. as long as its done properly not out to hurt people's feelings.

on the website thing.. a while back I was planning on doing some templates for new eic's to paruse or at least some tutorials on it.. but yer right Raz.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]efromme
2005-04-25 01:59 pm UTC (link)
SOPHISM was a site run by a group that would go around and review Fanfic sites. From top to bottom. From the overall site design, to how the site flowed, was broken down...to the Series on the sites, and a review of the entire body of work to how the stories fit into a solo series, and into the general continuity. The restults were posted on the web at SOPHISMS website. It was a pretty intense project. SOPHISM also did a bunch of editorials and articles like Matt mentioned, but those got overshadowed by the reviews.

At first SOPHISM, from what I gather keep in mind they were on the way down when I came into fanfic, did these reviews at random and then posted the results. Now, keeping in mind the general appreciativeness of people in fanfic, it wasn't well accepted because most sites would be given some constructive critism, but it was received by that reviewed site like they were ripped apart for the sake of ripping them apart. Because very few people (who are the same people who say over and over to not be so thinned skinned) can take critism and go..."Oh!! So this is what I need to do better!!"

Then SOPHISM took requests from EiC's or authors to review them, but unless they kissed that sites ass, their reviews again weren't very well accepted. After a while SOPHISM wound down due to much bickered and the people who ran SOPHISM were tired of being told that they 'eat babies' for fun. Everybody wanted to be decreed as GOLD by SOPHISM, but at best they got the BRONZE, because no site was perfect and SOPHISM KNEW THAT.

They weren't out to purposely hurt feelings, but they sure as Hell weren't gonna hold back just because the author has a weak ego.

Now, if there were a bit of elitism in SOPHISM I cannot comment, but it was the general attitude of the masses that there was, and that SOPHISM wasn't more than an elite fraternity that had nothing better to do than to eat up websites and shit them back out. If it did get that way after a while, I cannot say.

Personally, I was dissapointed that SOPHISM stopped, but I can understand it on the reviewers side. After being told that I do nothing by worship SATAN and eat babies, then I'd too tell them to fuck off and be mediocre too.

But, as I said this is just what I understand it to have been.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]phactorri
2005-04-25 05:18 pm UTC (link)
I see.. when I do reviews I also do the positive and negative to anything i'm reviewing, and I've never had anyone take it very bad. I personally feel that, its a waste of time if you don't call out the good and the bad. they both need to be voiced. If it was only the bad I can see why feelings might be hurt a little.. but if it was evened out.. I don't see what the big deal would be.

Seriously, reading a whole site and doing big ole review had to be quite an undertaking.. and I gotta give props for anyone who would sign up for that. There is no way in hell I could ever do that. *laugh*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]voxsola
2005-04-25 09:23 pm UTC (link)
That's pretty spot on, Erik. I think anyone who wants to know what Sophism was and what happened to it ought to read this.

I would add that the system was to choose one web site a month and to break up the series available between each member of Sophism to read and review. Some sites like MV1 had far too many titles for all of us to cover at once and toward the end, when some Sophists became disenfranchised, it was much more difficult to cover everything.

I don't know about writers ass kissing to gain favorable reviews but I do know that some reviewers had "friends" who were more likely to get favorable results than other people. We were human, after all, and some of us were susceptible to bias.

I should say A LOT of work and effort went into this. Alex Cook, as Meg mentioned, was ace on this. Not only would he tell a writer what he felt didn't work, Alex would often re-write entire scenes or paragraphs in italics to demonstrate his point. About midway through Sophism's reign, we also offered the quid pro quo program. We review your site and if the EiC chooses, a Sophist would provide a one shot or issue to that site as a demonstration of "what we meant." Pretentious? Hell yeah. But think about what that person is offering! Sadly, few EiC's took us up on that, especially once a select group decided we were nothing more than the sum of all our bad words.

At any rate, thanks again Erik. An unbiased and accurate account.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mcurtis
2005-04-29 05:43 am UTC (link)
I never knew about the one-shot offer! That is amazing! I can't believe an EiC would turn that down. Thanks for engaging in this discusion too. My knowledge of Sophism was rather limited and is only based on my one experience with it so it's nice to have an insiders viewpoint.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]voxsola
2005-04-29 12:55 pm UTC (link)
Depending on how much you want to know, Megan, I can turn you on to the back issues of Sophism.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]gstyle76
2005-04-26 12:34 am UTC (link)
The idea would be to see what made SOPHISM work and apply that to a new paradigm. Fan Fiction is different from what it used to be. I remember reading more Fan Fiction than actual comics because Fan Fiction seemed to appeal to my need for how I would've loved for comics to turn towards in the middle 90s to 2000. DCFutures was the first title where I really saw interesting and unique stories that appealed to me. Tommy Hancock, Jess Nevins, and Jason Cook were tops in my book of must read webbed serialized fiction writers. The best sites for this type of stuff was Fanzing and DC Futures.

The problem with fan criticism, especially with Sophism, was that there was no way of showing off the "credentials" of the writers involved. Since knowledge of this form of fan media is ephemeral, the only true indicator of who was the best "fan fiction" writer is how entrenched they were with knowledge of the a priori text or the comic books themselves. It's very hard to critique other fan fiction writers when they have the creditials of knowing a lot of comic book material but not knowing how to write well.

Sophism pulled that hard line of taking to task those who did not write well. It's a well needed criticism, but most fan ficiton writers don't write for that type of criticism. They write because they believe they have good ideas of how their favorate characters should go and be written. The only criticism they expect is criticism based on their ideas.

Is there a way to critique fan fiction? I've always thought some sort of formalized rubric would've done well for Sophism...something along the lines of a freshmen composition class where you can have a rubric based on "Fanfiction Design" (a scale based on how well the site is designed to attract readers), "Writing" (a scale based on how well the piece is written and how unique this vision is from other pieces), "Homage" (a scale based on how much the story relates to the continuity or the "voice" of the characters/character writers), and "Fan Appeal" (a scale based on how well the fanfiction appeals to noobs as well as old timers).

Actually, we should come up with something like this for HEROES. I've always thought a reviewer would do well to have a standardized list to judge a story and to help the writer with things that are important to that writer.

I swear, I have a 101 ideas for other things whenever I'm writing papers.

(Reply to this)


[info]gstyle76
2005-04-26 01:28 am UTC (link)
Fan Fiction Rubric (by me)

ORGANIZATION:
refers to website and overall design of story; order and focus of ideas; integrated and source support;

(20) Well-defined, entertaining web design; insight into characters, explanation of author’s viewpoint with support from text; consistent focus and graceful connections between design and text

(15) Clear design, mainly objective insight of characters using related support from the text; logical progression of design ideas; smooth connections with design and texts

(10) Conventional insight into web design and design of text; adequate connection between design and text

(5) Unclear or lacking any sense of design; inconsistent organization of website design; does not connect design and text

(0) No identifiable sense of design; no meaningful thought to the presentation of text; no control of organization and/or transitions between design and text

FAN APPEAL
refers to using words appropriate to the fan audience and purpose; choosing words for deliberate effect

(20) Compelling word choice that appeals to fans, demonstrating insight into characters, explanation of author’s viewpoint with support from text; character’s voice predominates

(15) Specific word choice including metaphor and analogy that appeals to fans; mainly objective insight of characters using related support from the text

(10) Conventional word choice that appeals to fans; voice wavers between argumentative and objective; unbalanced perspective showing some awareness of author’s knowledge of previous texts

(5) Vague, ordinary word choice with fanfiction clichés and jargon; no or little attention to how well the previous authors have written the character

(0) Word choice doesn’t fit audience or purpose

WRITING
refers to positioning and varying sentence length and rhythm to create a deliberate effect; fragments are a rhetorical choice

(20) Sentences are carefully formed and positioned with attention to emphasis, rhythm and pace to engages the reader

(15) Sentences show variation in pattern and are linked with appropriate transitions

(10) Sentences show variety in length, pattern, and rhythm

(5) Simple sentences are frequent with occasional fused sentences and fragments

(0) Awkward and unclear sentences; little variety; frequent run-ons and fragments

HOMAGE
Refers to the synthesis and integration of varied and credible comic book sources; avoids plagiarism

(20) Meaningful integration of varied and credible comic fandom; mastery of showing swerves and homages to previous texts; writes within continuity of fan fiction group;

(15) Clear integration outside text with adequate homage, tries to integrate fan fiction group;

(10) Integrates conventional sources within active continuity of the mainstream comic book line; quoting from comics have few errors;

(5) Weak integration of comic book line; multiple errors continuity with other titles, openly argues with known texts

(0) Poor use of character; questionable plagiarism; no attention to research;

GRAMMAR/MECHANICS
refers to spelling, word usage, grammar, punctuation, and ability to proofread

(20) Demonstrates mastery of grammar, creating compelling prose; few to no errors

(15) Demonstrates understanding of most grammar; spell check errors and typos remain

(10) Occasional errors in sentence structure, verb agreement, pronoun reference, spelling and punctuation

(5) Frequent errors in sentence structure, verb agreement, pronoun reference, spelling and punctuation

(0) Continuous errors in sentence structure, verb agreement, pronoun reference, spelling and punctuation

(Reply to this)


[info]dferguson
2005-04-26 04:17 am UTC (link)
Why don't more reviewers do reviews of entire series instead of single issues? I've got my own ideas about that and if you'll indulge me for just a moment here...

It's much easier to read an issue written by a buddy of yours or somebody who writes for the same site and throw out a "Great Issue!!! It Rocks!!! You Gotta Read It!!" Now, that's not a review. That's a press release. Nothing wrong with that at all. I believe in hyping your site's product. It shows support and interest.

But it's still easier than reading 10 or 12 issues of a writer who you don't know at all and you have no idea how he's going to take your review, even if he's asked for it. At a conservative estimate I'd have to say I've done something like 60 to 70 reviews of fan fiction series and more than half of them are of series that were not at any of the sites I write for. In order to be taken seriously as an objective critic I think that it is a necessity that you read and review stories by writers of other sites and as it is well known there are very few of us in fan fiction who read stories on other sites. Indeed, I have been told by writers and reviewers that they see no reason why they should read stories on other sites.

I suppose that for me it comes down to this: if you're reviewing stories and writers on just the sites that you are affilated with and ignore all the others then your motives are suspect...at least by me, anyway. You want an example? Okay, it's like Roger Ebert only reviewing movies made by Paramount and ignoring all other studio releases. You want to write press releases designed to steer attention to your site and support your writers, more power to you and Odin Bless....but if you want to want reviews then write reviews that dig into the guts of the story and gives the reader valuable insight on why he should devote precious time out of his life to reading that story or why he should ignore it. Tell the writer what works for you and what doesn't and put it to him in a professional manner and he'll accept it. Hopefully.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phactorri
2005-04-26 11:59 am UTC (link)
I agree.. I seriously think its a waste of time to review one issue. Especially concidering most writers don't write self contained stories. I think that it would do a service to the writer to do it in blocks.

Me personally I -never- do self contained issues. I try to do them in the Kingdoms thing, but it takes me forever and they turn out to be super long.. and i know that most people don't like to sit and read 20,000 word issues.

However as to fan fiction, sometimes I get to thinking how much is to much.. and I don't know if this is on topic or not. but am I the only one who sometimes feels that the work they put into fan fiction is a little over kill on something you are doing on someone elses property? I got into fan fiction as a way to just write and not have to think very much. Everything is already there, and all i'd have to worry about is putting out a minimalist plot and I could mostly focus on my grammar and other elements of writing I suck at. but then the whole thing drew me in and I got doing a heck of a lot more.. recreating characters and giving them personality they didn't have before, making villians building new characters.. and lets not even get on the amount of characters residing in my sketchbook that I drew up for fan fiction.

And at the end of the day I have to think with all thats on this forum with coming up with unified methods and designs for reviewing.. and what a fiction should have and how it should appeal to the fan... how much does it really matter?

Should this sort of thought be best served coming up with works you can take pride in? As apposed to works where nothing can be done with it outside of net.

I don't mean so much money, as I feel intellectual property and something that you can love and invest your pasion into. I might be alone but I don't hold as much stock into stuff I've written in fan fiction (even stuff like my green arrow where I built most of the character from the ground up) as I do from my comics, and other original writing projects.

Whats a take on this? is putting a ton of thought into this sort of thing really worth it? how many writers really care that much about the owned properties?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gstyle76
2005-04-26 12:40 pm UTC (link)
What is the purpose of fan fiction? I'm sure you'd get a lot of different responses. Some people create in order to appease their friends. Some people create it in order to show people how "Superman" should be written. Some people just want an audience for their fan-related ideas. It's a weird sort of give and take becuse it eliminates the boundaries of producer and consumer. Text on the screen is text on the screen. What is on the official DC website can be the same visually as what is on the screen of your favorate online fanfiction site. Fan related products are created because of this love of the original source material and their own "takes" on things. Sometimes fan fiction does well (Judd Winnick and Devlin Grayson are two that started out in fan fiction and became professional comic book writers). Sometimes it leads to other things (most of the people from the Artifice line started out as fanfiction writers and used that to develop their own style of writing for original material).

The idea would be to create a rubric which can appease all these different sources and all these reasons for writing. The purpose of such an endevour would be to give some sort of feedback to the author because if the writer didn't want anyone to see his/her writing, then why would that person put it online in the first place? Fedback is essential to doing better in whatever field you choose. There can be professionalism even in fan fiction circles, if only to help those who have decided to put down their ideas in an intelligable format.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]phactorri
2005-04-26 02:39 pm UTC (link)
hrrms.. seems very little like a review, more like a grading system. Where this might help someone in some parts of the technical aspect. some the things like "why a writer writes" would be pointless.

Why not just call it a technical grading system, and not worry about opinions and things. Take yourself away from your voice, and look at it like a disection. It would also be nice if there was a way to calberate it. That is instead of randomly choosing, how about if a fic group came to the collective reviewing group and asked for what everyone thought.

to be more of a technical stickler would it be possible for a group of this type to have people for diffrent avenues? for example english students/professional writers/ eics to look at the grammar sections. web designers to take a look at the web sections. comic historians to look at the synthesis stuff, etc?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gstyle76
2005-04-26 10:29 pm UTC (link)
>>> hrrms.. seems very little like a review, more like a grading system. Where this might help someone in some parts of the technical aspect. some the things like "why a writer writes" would be pointless. <<<

A review would also follow this type of rubric, to explain the aspects and to help the person understand how things fit together.

>>> Why not just call it a technical grading system, and not worry about opinions and things. Take yourself away from your voice, and look at it like a disection. It would also be nice if there was a way to calberate it. That is instead of randomly choosing, how about if a fic group came to the collective reviewing group and asked for what everyone thought.<<<<

Because opinions do matter within this context. Even within a rubric, things are being judged as valid or invalid within the eye of the collective.

>> to be more of a technical stickler would it be possible for a group of this type to have people for diffrent avenues? for example english students/professional writers/ eics to look at the grammar sections. web designers to take a look at the web sections. comic historians to look at the synthesis stuff, etc? <<

Hmmm...That would make sense...but the idea would be that those who would judge would be those who were knowledgable of fan fiction. They would be the ultimate judge. The specialist is the guy who judges because they're part of the community and would understand things like "fidelity to text" and such. A reviewer would be someone who's a part of the community but also outside of the community.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]phactorri
2005-04-27 04:48 pm UTC (link)
Okay so tell me... based on what we've discussed.. how is this diffrent than anyone elses reviews thus far? What exactly are you looking to do? Cause even with the rubric your still just doing a review. How does this help people?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gstyle76
2005-04-28 03:38 am UTC (link)
A Rubric shows method. Whenever I read a review from Sophism, I remember that there wasn't any real rubric. There was a rating scale, but no sense of why a "C" was picked above a "B." At least with a rubric and there is some sense of choosing rather than an arbitrary grade that could've been made up based on personal conflicts or just plain nastiness (which is what Sophism degenerated to).

Fan Fiction is an iffy principle to "rate" within a review because it isn't seen as legitimate. There are no such people as "professional fan fiction writers" so it would be tough to talk criticism. My suggestion for a rubric would've helped to at least show how the creation was given a particular rating.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]clauderainsrm
2005-04-26 02:53 pm UTC (link)
Sophism was a good idea executed like crap.

I was a fan of the first issue, and that was literally the only one readable start to finish as anything other than an attempt to be holier than thou.

That's not saying that there were not bright spots in each issue (Matt's stuff being one of the few I could regularly stomach, being that he was one of the few decent writers involved in the project), with decent and fair reviews, but they were completely overshadowed by this idea that Sophism had somehow become "cool" and some sort of yard stick when what it actually was just another way for those in charge to stroke each other's egos about how much better *they* were than the other writers out there.

The more blood they saw, the more they swarmed - with each issue becoming worse than the last.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2005-04-29 06:53 pm UTC (link)
I have a few questions on Sophism.

I came on the scene only three months ago and know nothing about the Sophism project.

After they finished going over a site, did they give the site editor a chance to see their opinions and comments before posting them on their site?

Were the editors given an opportunity to fix the bugs before they let everyone know about the problems?

Was a space provided on the Sophism site for the editors to respond to Sophism's comments?

kvj00

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]lifeofjason
2005-04-29 07:05 pm UTC (link)
Well, let's see. I'll go point by point with what I know:

After they finished going over a site, did they give the site editor a chance to see their opinions and comments before posting them on their site?

I believe they did this sometimes, but not really. How often does anyone get to see a review before it's made public?

Were the editors given an opportunity to fix the bugs before they let everyone know about the problems?

See above.

Was a space provided on the Sophism site for the editors to respond to Sophism's comments?

Sophism was discussed heavily on the HEROES mailing list and had a forum that they allowed any and all to post on. Really, there was no place where Sophism appeared that a reviewed person was not able to respond, so they had the same opportunity to respond as Sophism had to review.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2005-04-29 09:24 pm UTC (link)
'How often does anyone get to see a review before it's made public?'

A website is different than most things that get reviewed, like a movie, book, or painting. If their reviews are bad, they can't be repaired. Websites are easily changed if links are broken or the graphics are skewed.

I guess it depends on the primary objective of the review. Is it to help make the site (or story) better or to warn people that a site (or story) is bad?
Sure, it could be benefit both, but when you boil it down, who is the review for?

kvj00

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]lifeofjason
2005-04-29 09:41 pm UTC (link)
A website is different than most things that get reviewed, like a movie, book, or painting. If their reviews are bad, they can't be repaired. Websites are easily changed if links are broken or the graphics are skewed.

But if its an overall flaw in design, I think it should be voiced, at least to get other opinions. And I speak as someone who has critiqued sites privately and publically. Public gets more of a response.

I guess it depends on the primary objective of the review. Is it to help make the site (or story) better or to warn people that a site (or story) is bad?

Sure, it could be benefit both, but when you boil it down, who is the review for?

Both in one. It's also a "learn from these mistakes" situation. If I come out on HEROES and say a story is bad and why, it's to let the writer know what's wrong but also to let other authors to be aware of the same mistakes in their work. It's a public service in the end.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dferguson
2005-04-29 09:56 pm UTC (link)
Back when I was actively doing reviews there would be one of three reasons I was asked to write one:

1: The EiC of the site was looking to get readers interested in his site and figured a review or two could get people interested enough to check it out.

2: A writer wanted a sincere and objective criticism of his work and felt I would be best able to do that.

3: Someone wanted more attention paid to a particular writer/story or series because they felt that the writer wasn't getting enough attention and a review might cause more people to check it out.

And yes, I have been asked by writers if they could see my reviews of their work before I posted it. I would ask why and the answer usually was: "I want to make sure it's a good review before people read it." I would then tell them that if they didn't want me to post it, I wouldn't but I also wouldn't let them read it beforehand.

I didn't want to put myself in the position of a writer demanding that I make changes to the review or even worse, putting in their own 25 cents somewhere in the review. That's not a review in my opinion. Fortunantly there weren't many that asked to see reviews beforehand and I think only two writers asked that I not post the reviews and I of course respected their wishes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]darkmark
2006-04-10 12:44 pm UTC (link)
Actually, I was quite flattered that you did a few reviews of my work apropos of nothing. ;-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…