Reviewing Wisdom 1, 2, 3 GO!

OCT: 2010 ---> Below lies a 2004-5 work, a spoof presenting a few valid points to ponder. Soon opening a closed-port to public views. While Autumn promises: "EVERYONE HAS A HALLOWEEN STORY "  AND an offsite contest in the making.

WELCOME!

Now, before clicking the musical link below, Mary Moffett TRULY THANKS NORBERT, a WEBTV WIZARD for such a wonder.


http://norbert26.com/halloween/ghostbuster.midi


lllllllllllllllll

REVIEWING 1 2 3 GO!
by FICTION!! FANDANGO!!

Dear Writing.Com authors, readers, poets, members, moderators, forum hosts, guests, anyone with an open mind,

Seven days a week, we may enter a bookstore, pull down a book or two, read a review on the jacket. Now that's a real review.

Washington Post: "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee is a painful, shocking book which conveys not only how the American West was won, but how it was lost." c-rite 1971

Inside cozy nooks and towering aisles of local libraries, we make our choices for the month. Here is what we see.

For ANGELS & DEMONS, BY DAN BROWN,
"Brown sets an explosive pace through Rome. Twists and shocks that keep the reader wired right up to the last revelation." Publisher's Weekly, 2000

For Tamar Myers, THOU SHALT NOT GRILL -- "Think Mayberry R.F.D. with Mennonites. Think Murder, She Wrote with a PA Dutch accent. Think Magdalena Yoder, a plain-dressing, blunt-speaking, middle-aged innkeeper, who frequently rescues the incompetent chief of police by solving his cases." The Morning Call, Allentown, PA

Thus a review of a different horse altogether. These true-blues are available worldwide via Amazon to magazines at Walmart, my friends. YOU bring to the reviewer's round table a history of reading fabulous reviews. You have a knack to spot a good review. Please ... Don't leave home without it.

Throughout your venue here at WC you may, no doubt, often be tempted to review your fellow man. This person, male or female and of course fiction character as in the case of Hooves of Fire, will no doubt appreciate your time. However, please make sure that you do follow some if not all Guidelines listed for said review.

Merely pointing out mistakes, rearranging a person's work to suit yourself, or giving away the store by quoting almost the entire piece with your tool of copy & paste is and of itself a cheap shot review.

Doing the above can defer readers from the original writer's work. Since a helpful, eager beaver revver re-posts nearly the entire item, said work may go unread. Borderline copy-cat writing in my estimation.

Best to adhere to a few commonalities of writer to writer politeness.

You can't say this is boring as hell, stop writing. Nor can you say this is an e-book? My God! Nor will you ever say, go back to bed and read a few books for the next twenty years. Even if you think these things, avoid having your head bit off with responses to pure honesty. FYI I never had recourse to rate on any of the former, and just keep on reading to the bitter end of many a long winded, poorly written chicken scratch item, come hell or high water.

Your stamina as a reviewer may daringly enter such unchartered waters. Certainly up to you as reader to don a life jacket and buck the tide. A bad piece will have one or two good points.

A. It finally ends.

B. Try to search for one compliment, thus salvaging a 3*.

C. Toss in: grammar fine, no fault on punctuation, spelling A-OK. C. helps satisfy members. Note not everyone is perfect. But stories have left the chute.

D. Develope your revs from full read, to deciding on a rate. This is the spot to create a rev style. However, no one expects you to do as I say, nor as I do.

Also if you come across words like ... This may look better this way (and there was nothing wrong with the way it was written) who fools whom? That rev meant for the author to change it to suit the reader, himself. Seen every day of the year, unfortunately.

Do bear in mind, Mark Twain wrote: "Difference of opinion makes horse races."

To change a work without invitation, to me, seems an unwelcome intrusion.

Categories of Reviews, via TEFF

RUN-ON-REVIEWS

The first break from reality might be the run-on-review. Many run on reviews live, gather and multiply on Public Review Page, like mold on a stale beer in the Carolina sun.

Right this minute, I guarantee at least six run-on reviews which do not make any sense on PR. Often these are peppered with bogus writing advise which is sometimes corny or antiquated in today's era of blogging and internet access. Nor should a pompous rev deter authors from today's markets. Not a lot to lose sleep over for any good writer already knows he / she is a good writer. Good or wrong feedback will seldom change that writer's opinion of his own best work.

The criteria of run-on-reviews may be correction for correction's sake. Ultimately if you can stomach reading an entire run-on type, please Email me and I'll send you 10 gift points and a get well card. Promise.

Also, this reviewer often goes cookie-cutter, kowtowing throughout the review to enhance the ludicrous points she is making. Maybe to be culpable and repetitious makes the review believable to some, but not to me. Maybe not to readers nor the original author.

Why is this done? Maybe to raise inferior, shallow writing skills, or boost egos by finding fault? Now thass rough. Not cookie cutter fine. But it may be true, while acting the helper, over zealous may harm a writer, damage a piece.

Oh, worse, maybe to post the longest review on PRP. None of this is set in concrete, so we will never know reasons behind the charade of the Run-on-Review. Sorry. Best not let this bother us, ignore, scroll past these and quickly move on. For most non-sensical run-ons are a complete waste of time to type or read. So caution yourself, members, novice reviewers, authors in good standing, against such superficial bunk.

llllllllllll Sidebar: Always know an edit and a review are by definition 2 different things. So unless someone specifically asks you to edit for them, you NEVER are required to do so during a review. You edit this only if you prefer. Proofreading zeroes in on typos, punctuation, grammar and indeed saves time, so you can point these out. I never rate a typo error unless these were contagious, which shows the author did few edits. We are ALL guilty of this on occasion, especially during re-write / re-edit time. llllllllllllllllll

STABBERS

Stab Revs are seldom seen on PubRevpg. Most of these are anonymous, steaming with bitter jabs at the author whose work serves to piss the stabber off considerably.

Stabs the scabs can also be results of revs sent with comments the writer doesn't like, claims to not understand, or returns a biting review for a 3* or 3.5* or less. Which brings up an interesting subject. Folks who write six brief lines of poetry might expect a 5*

Rate below the average of 3* at your own peril. Or your mailbox jams full for weeks. Revs may arrive with outlandish concoctions. Try to wait 24 hours, sleep on it, before replying to a 2.5* or less. Best to ignore an anon with a sleazy attitude.

Worst of all, a revver may enter your life, say ... whom you gave a 3 or 3.5 or 4 stars. Then without further ado stab you right between the shoulder blades with less than you gave out with full intent on generosity. So do the best you can as a reviewer and batten down the hatches, close your port to rates temporarily is one way to avoid revenge reviews.

Stab reviews are often a sign of revenge of the nerds for no good reason, just cause or any prior communication whatsoever between you and the reviewer. These are total give-aways or vents of a cranky person having another bad hour or day who is not really revving your work. Instead the author is the goal of an awful debilitating things. Such as: slander, dishonesty, targeting. (?) Try not to think about it for any polished work, good or bad.

Stab revs are generally low raters, 2 etc. Even a one star. (Psst, you know who you are, hey?)

CONFUSION REVIEWS

{sixe:2} Personally, to Teff, the mere sight of the word 'confusion' drives me up a wall. A pet peeve is to write a basic story poem like

ID: 934432   (Rated: 13+) TWIN GIRLS / POEMS about Gwin & May  Itsby, bitsy spider went up the bedroom wall where two ladies sleep ... by FICTION!! FANDANGO!!

complete with grade school vocab. Then have a member write to me 3 times and say it was confusing. I had confused her and she was (oh how I detest this cheap, catch-all word) "confused." The entire ploy of Twin Girls is to present a first shot poem so know-it-all, change and slam revvers lay off dissing my fiction. Hellz Kitchen and The Alabama Slammer Lounge stories were going half read. One person rated the title. The ploy works. Long fiction pieces take less false heated barbs but might still acquire low rates from the perfectionist faultfinders. Twin Girls picks up the slack.

In short, a brief item, allows something short from the port of Teffom to review, run and hide. (For I KNOW WHO you are ... nah only kidding.) Sorry, couldn't resist. Craziness scares 'em you know, but never alleviates the -- Your work confuses me -- Review. How sad.

Don't Post Your Work For Public Comment If You Don't Want Honest Feedback Review

Well, now son. Granted the above category is more of a reply than a review. But if you look carefully at this boiler-plate reply, you may see subterfuge between the two. If the reviewer reviews your stuff with this attitude in mind then what chance do you have?

1. He's formed an opinion before the work is read.

2. That means he's better, our items are garbage or nothing at all, beneath his high standards of excellence. Enter all signs of a picky, picky revver.

3. Forget the entire fiasco. MOVE ON!

Kids, know at all times in your heart: You can't please everyone all the time, hardly ever. Anybody, Tom, Dick or Harry, Gwendolyn or Hepzabub is never an over-qualified reviewer in the first place. Honesty is over-rated and stressed here. Honesty which is tossed out in this type, shove it down your throat-wise. When in fact these shun mere proximity of truth with every sentence, par or stanza of your well-written lines.

Does this reviewer type get your goat?

Hell yes! Especially if he's dead wrong on content, reading ability and syntax. Or worse common sense or logic.

Advise ourselves to move way on. The Canadian Border is too close to this type reviewer from my desk chair in the hot seat now, baby.

THE SUGGESTION-SUGGESTION REVIEW

Review Contents are thought to include suggestions for so-called improvement. Nec or un-nec. Let's take a 3? Maybe, if qualified suggest. If not shut up.

If Teff ascends to the highest levels and gives 4 (B) or above, why does one need a suggestion box the size of a tractor trailer? The works okay, said, over, done. I'm not paid here, so why insist on keeping me on the clock (never actually said in so many terse words.)

But Lord! Do you want my car? Shall I cook your dinner? You don't own me. Egad, re-look at the piece or hire a patsy. Please, get away. I'm a small girl, help, help. Don't chase me.

If there are no suggestions in a Teff Rev, I had none. Simplicity, duh, dude?

Of clawing neediness for suggestion in a review:

1. Play it by ear very carefully.

2. Only suggest accurately if you can.

3. With my suggestions that are either too truthful or borderline re-writes, I try to say "Change -- If it fits and YOU like it" to authors. Poetry, I'd never change.

4. Avoid over suggestion. Lighten up. There's no contest for how many suggestions can fit in a rev.

POINT IF YOU GET A REV THAT IRKS YOU ...
and you pout, cry or throw a water balloon now you can read this again. It's my gift to you. Step back a pace, settle down and say AH HA! Mmmm mmmm? Wazzup? Then treat yourself to something you like. E.g. Sirloin with nasty broiled fat, ice cream, an hour with a best seller. Any diversion which aides hurt feelings or anger when somehow intentional or bogus helpfulness from a reviewer did not help. Searching for "improvement" in wc REV Guidelines

Grabbing a foot hold on "all work needs (my unqualified, exuberant helpful) edit, for work I did not write requires my appointments NEC for the author's work (not my work, my work is rev writing) improvement, critical feedback, corrections and a great big conceited and old-fashioned grammarizing" is simply ludicrous.

llllllllllll Additional notes: Refer to book jackets. Write your reviews in a glaring, entertaining, superb mode that befits your dignity, no matter what feedback arrives at your doorstep. Show a reaction. Not just ... "I really liked this, it is soooo good!" Coupled with the Bambi-in-the-headlights, mundane: "Tha-anks for shaaaaring!!" Sharing is overused in revs. One posts works then they're public targets.

Instead: "Imagine me sitting at the screen reading words about the dragon who ate the girl who the knight tried to save, caused me to gulp so hard, a fish bone got lodged in my throat and now I am suing Mrs. Paul's Frozen Seafood."

Get the picture? Sure, again, not rocket science. Humor in a rev is applauded, Satire? Oooh, very touchy ground, Teff learns to use sparingly. Like pepper on Hungarian Goulash.

Sure, you are read. You can blog, you can forum, post in your port. Why depend on Public Rev as your only exposure? Is it the gps?

Are you like me and YOU like this form of writing?

A must read is the review that has no snags and does not put the audience to sleep. PERHAPS imitate or collect any amount of countless published and famous reviews with brevity you wish to hold in the palm of your hand. If a review is written in a par format for a whole novel, how hard is it to do the same for poetry, for flash fiction?

Strive to reach a plateau of style and vocab. While your review conveys to authors and readers what's good in the item, what its about, reasons to read it. Unless the guy flinched your pickup, your dog and your wife, always try to promo authors.

If you can't read & review a piece, don't. Stay home the market's flooded. Enjoy other numerous outlets here. Blog is a blast to use.

If every other word in your rev is my thoughts were, my thoughts are, my thoughts suck .... Get a grip. Leave that in the trunk when you travel to Public Reviews. We get it. Puh-leeese!

If the category comes up entitled: PUBLIC EDITS, a new outlet is created to fits the ken for excessive editing. Personally, I'd love to see it. Imagine the play-by-play. Wow! Like this comma is not in the wrong place. Or why should I use caps in front of my pen-name? Onto: dern it, it's a draft, not a finished novella.

(PS StoryMaster, you see this here first! Hey, its me, humble, ironic Teff.)

And guys, Rev Forums are covering those weird replies. So far no felons. Well this ends my take on heated debate styles of Reviews. The T. Teffom rating system is a bird of a different feather.
Almost forgot. We read for entertainment & knowledge. I can't imagine missing out on a wealth of fantastic reads by only looking for mistakes. Cinderella's shoes won't fit each individual member.

YOU may write an entertaining review, certainly allowed. Help make Public Reviews a fast-paced, glorious haven. www.Suite 101.com offers how-tos on writing professional revs. Anyone can try this. We all know reviewing is fun.
On Guidelines For Reviewing I do not oppose them.

Merely trying to point out REV styles are different styles. You rev your way; I'll rev mine is a Teffom motto.

Again: Please Note this tid-bit of info: Editing is not a criteria of WC rev guidelines. Emerit Eds exist for the reasons of safety in numbers is a guess. Some, not all by far of the revvers make it so because they prefer to do so. Does that rev / edit help? Probably for some, but not all.

Q -- When an item is posted for review, is it posted for an edit?

A -- No. It is posted for a review. Unless stated otherwise.

Scroll down, scroll down, move on, move on. Yes, naturally edits may be helpful. Or they may be WRONG! Whimsies on reviewing are not attacks. Ho hum. Suffice to say Teff attack syndrome might be material for a survival show. Promo for the author is my game in a review sent/ written/ given. Wink, thanx for reading. Relax, won't you. For Teff means you no harm. Comments can be posted @

ID: 924861   (Rated: 18+) MOFFETT FILES TAKE FIVE  LIFE TOPICS WELCOME/ posts/writing tips/ a record/crt2005 by FICTION!! FANDANGO!!

Where stats show approx 50% of views originate off-site. Good promo spot for reaching a wide, diversified audience.


Meanwhile, bye-bye those who dishonor extrovertism inside any authorship approach to THEIR audience as daily we promo ourselves and strut our stuff.
People who write: RULE!!!
And to people who like this article, my thanks for the read.


"DEATH OF A BOTTLE HUNTER" 

Review of "Finding Light in the Darkness"

Review of "The Frontliner Focal"

OCT 2010: Author Note: There's a branch of comedic effect which runs that the opposite may be useful. Thus, seriously do not find anti prolific writers nor "echelon" etc to be potent allies. No apologies.