Anyone willing to explain critiques? I sent this in mostly out of boredom and to see what a "serious" critique of fan fiction would be. Here's what I got back:

Response (strike one of three):

Hello there TheAlmightySage, name omitted of Equestria Daily here, at your service. I regret to inform you that your work isn't fit for publication on EqD at this time. Major issues at this juncture include but are not limited to:

- Talking heads
- Show vs. tell
- what seems to be a majorly close, if not almost outright plagarizing of the first episode of the 'Spice and Wolf' series
- dry descriptions
- use of numbers below one hundred without spelling them out (as is stylistically correct in several writing manuals)

All of the above issues were found within the first chapter alone. As a fan of 'Spice and Wolf' myself, might I suggest taking your work over to Ponychan's fic board and seeing if you could recruit an editor or three to take a look into it to help you out? There's potential here, but it's currently being strangled by the issues I've found.

All the best

I'm bored and willing to listen to any explanations, comments, and suggestions.

Oh boy... ***cracks knuckles***

Alright, lets start with the first one.

- Talking heads

This is a very seldom used writing term, but to put it in a nutshell, it's what happens when two people are talking, and there is, (a. An over use of dialogue tags like, He said, she said, (b. Very little or no description of where they are, or what the scene is, and (c. No mood to the characters.

It's not always necessary to compound a scene with a lot of description, but if there is one thing I've noticed from all feedback from EqD, is that they would rather a writer kill their story with a massive amount of water weight and use up every word in the English language to show them every blessed loving thing from texture to the rain, to how it felt on the skin of the face of the person looking up in the sky to how the water felt falling and hitting them on the face.

It's a common issue with a lot of writers, and the usage of "Talking Heads" is somone's attempt at being persnickety.

- Show vs. tell

When all else fails with a review, every prereader will inevitably fall back on this one. Since it's a matter of style a majority of the time, and one that is a sure-fire safety net for the reviewer to reject a piece. It's the literary crux of many prereaders and will have a writer laboriously re-writing their work a thousand times to ensure that every aspect of a story is so over-burdened with insight and elaboration we end up with an encyclopedic reference guide to everything in the story, but the actual story.

Every example of showing versus telling is a matter of debate, and one that I would call foul on. For example, if I wrote that:

Jane was beside herself with excitement, as she waited on the call from Stephanie.

Well, the prereader would say, "That's telling, we want more showing." and they would have me giving my story a massive boob-job of bloated writing, just to satisfy their testicle itch, and my story would be something like this:

Jane sat by the phone, her nerves tingling with excitement, as every muscle ached to burst from the ornate chair she sat in, overlooking the deck her husband had built the previous Summer; her eyes darting from the phone to the yard outside, and then back again, with each tick and tock of the clock accelerating her anticipation, hoping, praying, pleading for Stephanie to dial her number.

fact is, they don't have a clue what I really wanted to say in that scene, and maybe at that moment, I just wanted to move past Jane sitting like a idiot on the sofa waiting on her friend like she was some sort of neurotic hyperactive psycho, which is what they would have me making her out to be. Thanks prereaders for having me foul up my story, just so you don't have to use your imagination a little.

- what seems to be a majorly close, if not almost outright plagarizing of the first episode of the 'Spice and Wolf' series

Clearly, they are better at spelling and punctuation than they are adding, because two and two equals A Spice & Wolf crossover, and what were they wanting to get?

- dry descriptions

More reaching, and justification for a rejected review.

- use of numbers below one hundred without spelling them out (as is stylistically correct in several writing manuals)

More nit-picking. Though, most people do NOT know how to properly use numbers in writing, or italics for that matter.

All in all, I'd say the reviewer failed to offer you a solid review, and reading between the lines, at that comment about being a fan of Spice & Wolf it tells me they were irritated that you thought you could pull off a cross over of their favorite anime.

595004
Howdy! Not a pre-reader, but I'm part of Ponychan's /fic/, to which you were referenced.

Talking heads

This refers to extended dialogue unpunctuated with things like body language or details, resulting in the scene dissolving into little more than talking heads. It's pretty case-by-case, but the point is that your dialogue becomes boring as a result of nothing else (descriptions) grounding it to the scene. It can also disrupt flow when you end the dialogue and return to narration.

Show vs. tell

I could write an essay, but /fic/ has gone and done that already. http://mlpchan.net/fic/res/2137.html

Seriously, read the thread, and all should be clear.

what seems to be a majorly close, if not almost outright plagarizing of the first episode of the 'Spice and Wolf' series

It's considered bad taste to copy events from the source material rather than merely the universe or characters or tone, because plot events are what drives the story, and if you can't bring anything new to the table, what's stopping your readers from just looking at the original? It's somewhat like plagiarism in that it's a copy of the essence of somebody else's work.

dry descriptions

The sky was clear. The sun was bright, the snow was white. He was happy. She was sad.

This is kind of hard to explain in general terms, but most of the time this is attributed to descriptions written in a very basic manner so as to be uninteresting (dry), or very fixed structure so as to be repetitive (dry). "Dry" really means boring, and boring is when you don't give your reader mental challenges or stimulation. Telling us he's happy is meh. Telling us he's smiling lets us piece together that he's happy. Related, but not always, to show vs tell.

use of numbers below one hundred without spelling them out (as is stylistically correct in several writing manuals)

Not sure about the below one hundred part, but EqD's stance is no numbers, only spelled numbers. Like, two instead of 2 (is this explanation even necessary? lol).

For a more in-depth review, visit /fic/. Read the sticky, take a deep breath, and drop by a review thread. We'll take care of you best as we can.

595589
There are many things I could say to you, but it wouldn't be very pleasant. Allow me this:

I'd say the reviewer failed to offer you a solid review

They're not supposed to give you a solid review. They're supposed to give you a list of reasons, and that looks like a perfectly functional set of reasons to me.

596058

There are many things I could say to you, but it wouldn't be very pleasant.

As long as it's from the heart, and not from some manual of style, I don't really mind.

596077
Well then, good sir, in the words of Samuel L. Jackson, "allow me to retort".

This is a very seldom used writing term, but to put it in a nutshell, it's what happens when two people are talking, and there is, (a. An over use of dialogue tags like, He said, she said, (b. Very little or no description of where they are, or what the scene is, and (c. No mood to the characters.

This much is fair except for the "very seldom used". I'm no expert on worldwide writing, but /fic/ uses it fairly regularly in explanations and reviews.

It's not always necessary to compound a scene with a lot of description, but if there is one thing I've noticed from all feedback from EqD, is that they would rather a writer kill their story with a massive amount of water weight and use up every word in the English language to show them every blessed loving thing from texture to the rain, to how it felt on the skin of the face of the person looking up in the sky to how the water felt falling and hitting them on the face.

It's a common issue with a lot of writers, and the usage of "Talking Heads" is somone's attempt at being persnickety.

I'm willing to accept that it's a common issue with Fimfiction, but it doesn't making talking heads any less boring, so persnickety isn't quite the word. Terry Pratchett has plenty of untagged dialogue, and so does P.G. Wodehouse, but that's because they have exemplary, interesting dialogue. Often, fanfic dialogue is nowhere near close to that, and so must be supported with nuances to keep the passage interesting. Again, it relates to engaging the reader - bunch of exposition and srs-talk can be made more interesting when there's a moving mental picture to go with it. Flicker of the eyes. Tap of the hoof. That sort of small thing. It's quite easy to fix with merely a small amount of description, like one or two tags to a set of six lines (which is merely how I write dialogue, and not a definite guide) rather than one for every line of dialogue.

When all else fails with a review, every prereader will inevitably fall back on this one. Since it's a matter of style a majority of the time, and one that is a sure-fire safety net for the reviewer to reject a piece. It's the literary crux of many prereaders and will have a writer laboriously re-writing their work a thousand times to ensure that every aspect of a story is so over-burdened with insight and elaboration we end up with an encyclopedic reference guide to everything in the story, but the actual story.

Or, the story could be a load of boring tell and unengaging lack of show. Just saying.

I've seen plenty of rejections letters without "show vs tell" on them, and it's often attached to works which are decent but could be much better, rather than failing-grade. It's not like pre-readers have a rejection quota, so I can't understand the sentiment of them actively seeking rejection reasons. Well, I can kinda, given some of the reasons I've seen, but not as harsh as this.

Every example of showing versus telling is a matter of debate, and one that I would call foul on. For example, if I wrote that:

werds

It is indeed case-by-case, but don't you think not even reading past the first sentence is giving the pre-readers too little credit, aside from being a ridiculous assumption - against the pre-readers, and in favor of the rejected? I mean, I haven't read the story in question, so I can't say beyond general principle, but have you?

More reaching, and justification for a rejected review.

Dry descriptions are dry and are a perfect reason for rejection. Nobody wants to read something boring.

More nit-picking. Though, most people do NOT know how to properly use numbers in writing, or italics for that matter.

A conceded point, but that's what "uniformed standards" are, I guess.

reading between the lines, at that comment about being a fan of Spice & Wolf it tells me they were irritated that you thought you could pull off a cross over of their favorite anime.

This much is uncalled for. I'm sincerely puzzled as to how you could pick that out of the letter, when "the lines" are a shopping list, an attempt to make a connection, provide a useful suggestion, and even a small encouragement.

595589>>595986
Well thank you both for your very helpful information and explanations.

Honestly the moment the email said "I'm a fan of Spice and Wolf" I figured he'd not like what is written because his own personal standard would be too high as a "serious" fan fiction pre-reader.

Also how hard is it to use /fic/ via smart phone since I'm doing all my work on my phone. And yes that includes all my writing of 16k plus words of my current story.

596125

It is indeed case-by-case, but don't you think not even reading past the first sentence is giving the pre-readers too little credit, aside from being a ridiculous assumption - against the pre-readers, and in favor of the rejected?

As a writer, I'm always going to favor the writers, God knows the copyeditors wont. They are too busy exacting judgement and executions by the power and the letter of the law.

I mean, I haven't read the story in question, so I can't say beyond general principle, but have you?

And as a rule, I always read what a writer says was either critiqued, or rejected by a prereader. There are times, I will side with the prereader, and offer words, and more words, to help the writer comprehend what the grocery list means, and give them a step towards bettering some small thing.

I do this plenty. Not to side with grammarians, but to help a writer improve, through a brotherly pat on the back, and a common everyman way of relatively coaching and guiding.

As for the other things, I agree with you about the "talking heads" thing, and I know about the usage of tags or not using tags. My point was that, it would have to be overly, blatantly, riddled with repetitive he saids, and she saids for it to warrant being an issue. As long as there are dialogue tags, and they know what they are. Remember Stephen King said, "To write with adverbs is human, to write he said, she said, is divine."

As for showing versus telling, I'm always going to be an opponent of that style; simply because, it is an advanced form of creative writing that is beyond a huge number of fan-fiction writers, much the way driving a semi-truck with a commercial driver's license is beyond most driving students in high school.

I feel, and will always feel that judging a teenager's/high school student's/casual fan's fan-fiction on the basis of such an higher caliber form of storytelling is not only the epitome of elitist grammarian socialism, it's just plain cruel. Even if, said website has a high, very high level of expectation for the sorts of stories that are allowed to gain entry.

Now if were were talking about adults with a degree in English composition, with an emphasis on 17th century medical satire, and they were going to write a story, and they were guilty of telling and not enough showing, or not showing in the right places, and telling the right places, then I would say, get a rope and hang them. Twice. The bastards would deserve everything they have coming.

But I feel, and will always feel that a huge amount of perspective is lacking in the fan-fiction community, and a very wrong and premature sense of grammatical perfection is expected of children and young adults way earlier than necessary for what it is that they are wanting to accomplish with a silly pony fiction where they and some adorkable version of Princess Luna smooch and play house, in a written version of their vivid fantasy.

ALSO

Read it if you have the time: Apples and Wheat

Honestly I don't see half the things he claimed were problems and I'm my own most brutal critic.

596152

As for the other things, I agree with you about the "talking heads" thing, and I know about the usage of tags or not using tags. My point was that, it would have to be overly, blatantly, riddled with repetitive he saids, and she saids for it to warrant being an issue. As long as there are dialogue tags, and they know what they are. Remember Stephen King said, "To write with adverbs is human, to write he said, she said, is divine."

I can see your point and I'm working it out, but dialogue is one of my strong points.

I feel, and will always feel that judging a teenager's/high school student's/casual fan's fan-fiction on the basis of such an higher caliber form of storytelling is not only the epitome of elitist grammarian socialism, it's just plain cruel. Even if, said website has a high, very high level of expectation for the sorts of stories that are allowed to gain entry.

I agree. This is a hobby not a serious money earning endeavor.

596152

I feel, and will always feel that judging a teenager's/high school student's/casual fan's fan-fiction on the basis of such an higher caliber form of storytelling is not only the epitome of elitist grammarian socialism, it's just plain cruel. Even if, said website has a high, very high level of expectation for the sorts of stories that are allowed to gain entry.

Now if were were talking about adults with a degree in English composition, with an emphasis on 17th century medical satire, and they were going to write a story, and they were guilty of telling and not enough showing, or not showing in the right places, and telling the right places, then I would say, get a rope and hang them. Twice. The bastards would deserve everything they have coming.

But I feel, and will always feel that a huge amount of perspective is lacking in the fan-fiction community, and a very wrong and premature sense of grammatical perfection is expected of children and young adults way earlier than necessary for what it is that they are wanting to accomplish with a silly pony fiction where they and some adorkable version of Princess Luna smooch and play house, in a written version of their vivid fantasy.

This is what I told Ponky a while ago in a different situation, the crux of which (emphasis added) applies here:

Some people find satisfaction in the very act of writing. Some people can find satisfaction in others finding satisfaction.

Fanfiction does make the world a better place, in the same way normal fiction does. Not necessarily for the writer, but for the readers.

Now, this is somewhat controversial, but might I suggest that if you feel bad when other people don't like your work, then you're definitely taking your own work seriously. Perhaps too much, or perhaps not too much, but you're definitely not chucking it to the wind. And that's good, because only people who care have what it takes to improve. But what you shouldn't think is "I don't take my own work seriously", and by extension, "Don't take fanfiction seriously", because, well, that's not the truth. Fanfiction is worth the analysis, the line-by-line reviews, the endless waves of editing, because people can and do enjoy them in the same way they enjoy other forms of expression and art.

I refuse to believe that the writers of this fandom can't learn to write well, because there are so many good stories which prove otherwise. To take one example, ss&e has crippling flaws in his style but you cannot ever fault him for being unable to show vs tell, and he keeps up 3 alternate timelines successfully in the course of End of Ponies. Blueshift, to my knowledge, does not have a degree in creative writing. Neither does Garnot nor Pascoite.

I also refuse to believe that fifteen-year-olds are expected not to be able to tell the difference between there and their.

What is a wrong perspective to you is a high expectation to me that fuels writers to do better and to develop themselves more. I didn't know didly squat about writing until I joined /fic/ and had my share of hammering. People can do better, and plenty of people do. What is wrong with expecting writers to seek improvement when the means are perfectly within reach?

596165

I'm my own most brutal critic.

You're not acquainted with /fic/, are you?

If you find yourself stumped, do visit. Get on a computer. Actually, alternatively, you can visit WRITE. The reviewers there are hardworking and more experienced, and may be able to shed some light.

598737
Considering ponychan is not phone friendly and mlpchan is painfully slow. No, I haven't been to eother site much since my comp died.

Furthermore, I have placed my fics on google docs PM me if you want to help edit.

606463

Thought there was something I'd forgotten to do. Apologies for having taken this long to get round to it.

You submitted the story in question to SALT a while back, yes? I handle the submissions there, and I didn't post it because the link was broken. There's also the fact that nearly all of SALT's reviewers are now in WRITE, but that's a side issue.

Anyway, I'd still be willing to review the story in question. One question first, though: on the Fimfic page or through Gdocs? First one'll probably give you a more subjective review (aka, less grammar nitpicks, more overall themes), but the second one'll probably contain a proofread, if only because the ability to comment on everything that bugs me in the latter case easily goes to my head.

596058

I'd agree with this. I don't think most of this fandom understands the difference between Reviewer and Prereader. Or Editor and Reviewer, for that matter.

The Prereaders exist to stop stories from getting on to the site: that is their defined function. That they give an answer beyond "yes" or "no" is them being nice.

629067
That image startled me slightly. Anyways I was unaware the link was broken, sorry about that.
I'll send you a gdoc link. Because I like my stuff being hit with a battle axe and a Fus Ro Dah. Helps keep my future writing's grammar, syntax, etc.

I will PM you with details. Give me a sec.