*Magnify*
SPONSORED LINKS
Creative fun in
the palm of your hand.
Printed from https://www.Writing.Com/view/945969
Rated: 18+ · Letter/Memo · Satire · #945969
Criteria for Cordially from MS TEFFs REVs sent
OCT: 2010 ---> Below lies a 2004-5 work, a spoof presenting a few valid points to ponder.
lllllllllllllllll
/b}
REVIEWING 1 2 3 GO!
by April Sunday

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
 TWIN GIRLS / POEMS about Gwin & May  (13+)
Itsby, bitsy spider went up the bedroom wall where two ladies sleep ...
#934432 by April Sunday


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 @
 MOFFETT FILES TAKE FIVE  (18+)
LIFE TOPICS WELCOME/ posts/writing tips/ a record/crt2005
#924861 by April Sunday


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.


Later came --
lllllllllll

YO! REVIEWERS, WHY NOT LIGHTEN UP!
Subtitle: REV WISDOM 4

When joining www.writing.com many new members will behold golden words onsite which pertain to reviewing. In the meantime, new and classic members alike might want to loosen up, lighten up, if review writing to others is your main addiction. Please don't forget to bring reading skills you carry with you along your adventurous travels across poetry, journals, fiction, short stories and novels. In other words, many gleefully rack up numerous reviews sent to other members (aka original authors of their, ownership/ copyrighted items displayed on wc and on the world wide web.) ... To these reviewers perhaps, if you don't mind, please try a tad bit of heed on what not to do. Hopefully, one who reviews may avoid pitfalls evident almost everywhere you look.

Yes, there will be guidelines offered by the worthy. Some are relevant, others are not even feasible. Generally, when we write articles, essays, poetry, fiction or nonfiction, we bring to the table baggage such as logic, life experience, research, former education. We're striving to do our best.

Why? Because writers have something to say. Prior to the work being critiqued. In short normally we usually think as we read. But the written tresspass of a review tends to go far deeper into the mind of the author in some cases.

All common sense, of course (above) which should never be ignored. We're not seeking insults, put downs etc.

Seriously, writers aren't flapping outside the pond, awaiting your choice on the way it should be written, if you prefer to re-write correct works. The adjective, arrogance comes to mind immediately. So, let's strive to desist on the I I I want to read .......
I I I want to see ....
I I I think ______ is better.

Boo hoo. Poor reader. Right?

Worse Alert! Lies can really harm an author whose just starting out. Likewise, even anger might surface for more seasoned authors knowing exactly when our words are misinterpreted to suit reader/ reviewers. Writers, dearies, they are pretty much very aware when their paragraphs are not taken seriously. Thus, this plea to lighten up; place more value on the pieces on wc than the rev for those special Pulitzer items.

Stands to reason, not all reviewers fall into the chip-on-the-shoulder file, not by any means. Actually, there is no real reason to be against authors, is there? WC is a writing/ reading website.

One very important portion of writing is organization. So onto the very first matter of business billed in Subtitle: REVIEW WISDOM 4 based on what folks say about reviews they receive. Also, at this time be advised my current short story not counting two months random thinking time is already over fifteen days, generally three hours per diem for a mere 5K word count. So, the stories you're reviewing come with hard work, time, creative muse, eduction or research. The best kindness stodgy stoic revvers can adapt is full knowledge of that fact.

1. CRAFTING REVIEWS VIA GUIDELINE PERKS
Of: Guidelines for reviewing where it is said, repeated ad nauseum. (Supposedly this suggestion is found someplace, also perpetually quoted from defensive, argumentative revvers themselves.)

Namely: "all work needs improvement."

Logically this is irrelevant and probably false. Because not all work by an author, any author either needs nor asks for improvement. Plus, at the outset, guidelines prompt and stem from a suggestive MO for reviweing.

This is the thing. A guideline is a guideline, not a rule delivered by Moses, long before both you and I were babes in hospital nursery wards.

Thus, we may honestly deduce herein, that if rules were made to be broken, guidelines are rather iffy and can be ignored. If one cares to go that route, of course. Standing behind random premises in Reviewing Wisdom 1, 2, 3 GO! (18+)
Criteria for Cordially from MS TEFFs REVs sent
#945969 by Paula LaRue (133)


currently automatically assume this sister piece which predates the one you're reading now already points out differences for the audience re: a review by definition and an edit.

Granted by definition a review is never rocket science. Okay, it's probably easier to construct a rocket to the moon than have all review pieces align like a stellar re-entry path. So, suffice to say reviewing aint rocket science. Allow factual conscription to apply to your take on the topic.

Be informed, however, a rev is not an edit nor an editorial comment. But since many illustrious, heady revisors, and we know who you are, no hiding your stuff if you use PR .. prefer to combine their comments with corrections then sure we accept that editorial aspects of onsite reviews do exist.

Besides, this aint Braille and we-uns aint blind. WE see those gargantuan, overwordy revs which are almost 100% edits. Many revisors are hellbent on improving works by others due to the guideline fluff --- all work needs improvement.

Now, myself, I like to read the item, point out what is well written. Even laud or linger on key phrases which come off as impressive. These gems are referred to as "keepers." Thus the author. let's call her Joanne of Archery will know these shouldn't be edited into oblivion at the hands of other revvers who may object to the same parts. Which, don't need improvement at all ala setting, plot or character and often clock in as story strong points.

Naturally, PRP boasts a large contention of revisors. These gungho stalwarts of rev philosophy, which they usually defend like a medieval right to seek The Holy Grail, are all about revising perfectly adequate sentences, often for no known reason.

Granted, in some cases a verb sandwich then sprouts upon the page for the author to split in eighths with other authors who also wallow in dicey, delicious re-writes form this type of re-writer-revisor-reviewer.

Unfortunately for some, the revver is not standing outside his window, so one can't throw a bucket of water on him or her. Blatantly obvious also absent are fellow authors who receive these cunning revisor-tactic revs. Neither are other writers sitting snugly, nodding in disapproval at the author's dining room table. No, the author remains alone, on the outskirts of rev society when he receives in his E-mail slot the re-write rev. Which by all common standards, if it were as delectable as the reviewer had laid it on, smeared with ketchup, mayo, lightly dabbed with raw spicy onions, these multiple revisions might feed a starving third world country. All from PubRevPg courtesy of revisors.

lllllllllll SIDEBAR: lllllllllll Just to be a silly. Elmer Fudd phoned the other day. His stuff got slammed, due to pronunciation. Now, he's calling the review-revisor a we-wiser. Elmer swears we-wisers rewind an author's original work. In order to promote their excellent we-wiews, But, is he right? lllllllllllllll

So as a marauding revver don't slice and dice for your own reading ability. Nor for the sake of filling in a trite copy-paste added to your re-write, inclusive of any revs submitted.

Interesting sections where fiction prose authors or poets achieve merit in production of his/ her product deserve better treatment. In sum, the best part should always be kept. It's okay, most authors know this about their work, since it is pretty close to them.

The item is the product. The item is not the author nor vice versa. So now dribble the basketball on court. Some, fantastic revvers who are well credited onsite, and daring improvers in their own right may admit this is true, but probably will hold it against one if their golden calf rev is met with a reply to a rev which kinda runs ... "Hey, are you crazy?"

Author to author, yes, Virginia we may reply to revvers that they're waxing helter-skelter in their critique. We know we owe it to both ourselves, whom produce the product which is akin to what gets sold in bookstores, graces library shelves and is what Literature is all about.

Although take the title: THE FACE OF INJUSTICE IN REV RECEPTION may not be worthy of a library, much like REDUNDANT REVIEWING DICTATORSHIP it is still a product, none-the-less. Not produced or handmade by the reviewer in any sense of the word or meaning thereof.

Imagine now, bereft of time and space, there's an alien going berserk, since this paragraph contains a cliche. So what? The cream of the crop for me is: A copyrighted work belongs to the author. Plus, we should respect ownership and creativity of these items.

Oh, my mouth hurts, hold on a sec. Generally, an aversion to stodgy, sorry. Remember, organization, deep breath. Okay ..

Q: Do prestigious reviewer types tend to be over critical on PRP?

A: Yes. Yes, they do. Teff's POV is that pretty much looks like what they want to do, set out to accomplish all going back to the ridiculous AWNI. Meantime in the age-old quest of aiding our fellow man (other authors who copyrighted the work, poets who posted when their poems were edited and perfected -- any item owner, really) the absolute opposite may go down.

Unless, you are writing the story, how in the hell do you come off as the one to improve it?

A. It doesn't belong to you.

B. You weren't asked to edit it or push so-called improvement into the item nor an author's face.

C. What qualifies you to inflict changes?
D --- Worse, the changes suggested may be superficial and these could be wrong.

Of: D: Wrong advice is bogus, an incorrect --- slapdash, thank you maam
--- overzealous, crapshoot at assistance. Could be because these premises of taking simple guidelines, maybe even misinterpreting same, then using them against authors is the name of the game for some. How they sleep at night is a good question. Yeah, it happens.

Now, RE: typos, we may say -- typo at: ________. Believe it this helps, since small stuff sometimes slides directly under the conveyor belt during spell check. See?

WE are in an age where not all publishers are returning work submitted to them because it breaks grammar rules, doesn't fit categories of ultimately boring enough for the sake of boredom. Boredom is not godlike, it is boring and usually trash, slushpile worthy.

However, publishers accept sentence frags, tense switches, less comma usage. A comma may stand for "is." Three sets of a series can skip the final and. As in "Joanne of Archery submits poems, flash fiction, articles."

So, real live readers who --- keep current at libraries, bookstores, online, magazines, anthologies, newspapers, The NY Times Book Review --- wherever the source of their/ our reading --- might graciously admit what's seen in a Handbook on the English Language CAN BE written around for basic flow of the piece. Shoving at writers low rates & urges of perfection due to punctuation is now-a-days rather groundless. If he/she is realistic enough to stretch, thus simultaneously include the same things publishers are doing daily .... then we can admit things are just fine.

Revving is a blast when one clicks on a new poem and feelings of a discovery encountered ensues. Great FUN! Finding, reading a brand new story online by a favorite or a newly acquainted author. This is fantastic when scripting your take directly to the author. I love it.

Hey, guys & dolls ... Changes are afoot.

BY WHO? Publishers & Publications

WHERE? Anywhere, all over the place.

WHEN? Today, anytime, since William Faulkner stretched his writing into a new punctuation-less style and created voice in writing etc. is one e.g.

WHY? Because Literature evolves from ordinary basics.

WHAT? Onsite items to be reviewed.

Of the peculiar phrase all work needs improvement .... ask yourself and please consider ... BEFORE YOU ADD YOUR 2,000 kb per square inch of nasty critique for the sake of posting a rev to another ... please ...

Examine what wise advice you're dishing out. Are you positive
of your incredible critique?

Answer -- No, not necessarily. Then keep mum. Use another tactic instead in your rev style.

If (AWNI) this be a guideline one hides behind to put down the work of another, that is very shameful.

If this be guideline to dissect a chapter that is fine or close to fine, this is not fair to the original author. Here it also looks like since you didn't write an original of your own, you'll use someone else's work as a spring board, while you smile because you get to write/ compose a review. Hey now, based on another's idea? These quasi worthless reviews are actually based on original words belonging to another writer, honey chiles.

To the latter rev-writer typist, those who get posted, credited and praised for revs (which, darling sure bore me to utter tears on PRP) ... perhaps try something new this month.

Hey, try writing a short story, as opposed to openly making war on same.

Hey, how about a quest for a new IN-Thing onsite? And the suggestions are ...?

Perhaps something besides luxuriant praise, kudos, and shoulder slapping for your grand reviews, review activities, review forums, rev games, rev conquests, rev how to do it rights.

Hey, I know. How about a bit more emphasis on writing how to's, hints in article form, bereft of the entire word review. Can we see more than ten truckloads of thankfulness to authors who do the work, which you simply and altruistically don't actually help at all with cunning mothballs in the mouth reviews.

REV Wisdom 4 shall self destruct in a few seconds, the timer's set. Suppose new rules of the game run .... less sitewide emphasis on reviewing?

Can we ever see new stuff around here? Oh, darlins ... whatever it is, I beg you, please, please make it witty. That's in the dictionary, too. After revise, behind Imperialistic rev conceit.

How about trying a knack for "more interesting" plots, fun reads etc. All this constant rev rules, rev explanation, and deviousness surrounding the edits you pass off as reviewing grow stale.

Meanwhile, check the definition. Realize not all reviews are good reviews. Most crave tons of improvement, to be sure. Uh, oh, here's another comeuppance for you. Are you ready? Not all popular, crowded halls where reviewers lurk, boast this fact. Not all reviewers are good nor qualified reviewers, nor editors. Yup, 'tis true. Obvious actually if perusing PubRevPg.

Let us not discourage authors & readers by dropping them like hot potatoes with words which in many cases should not be delivered to their e-box dooorsteps.

We're novice authors out here, of all ages, from all walks of life. If mistakes are only what you want to pivot on in the improvement category ... my gawd.

Author-to-author, try tossing in a few authorship, writing hints. If you don't know any, researching those is easy enough.

Pertaining to writing ----- Everyday new things come our way. Dropping the ken for strange, one-sided rules of engagement in rev/comments to meet & greet community members instead is certainly one way to fly.

Well, seriously must bid you farewell for now. Shall finish my short story, a work in progress. Have the grand August, oh please do. As you lighten up in rev genre. If you are already like moi, then passing on the lighten up rev/word is a fine, helpful aide for all writers.

Writers read, writers write and writers also write revs, I do. If you care to see some, these are listed on my blog: June Bugs & Elderberry Wine (18+)
Journalism/ Serials/News 2005. BLOG revamp Mar '16 Book CLOSED
#952447 by Paula LaRue (133)


And on my forum: "MOFFETT FILES TAKE FIVE"

On PubRevPg you may notice a search box. Type in a user's name, mine is teffom and up will come recent revs sent.

Thanks for listening. Please e-mail me if you have anything to add. Especially if you received a rev you found completely off base, of no value or bogus. Which in effect hurt your work, which is just so very sad. For several years, sympathy for such ridiculous behavior is easily shared author-to-author.

Again, is it finally time to say stand firm? Together we may address and conquer bogus rev spotlights. To the guilty parties: STOP gloating amongst yourselves, if your reviews are not worthy of the ink on this author's keyboard. There's hundreds of us out here and we like our stuff and look forward to the final re-re-re-re-edit, a part of writing in ordinary time.

Gosh, please never forget as authors you own your pieces. A reviewer is a visitor to your digs. Not too many folks enter my house these days since probably rusty barb wire puts them off. When they do enter, if I'm in a rare hospitable mood, they seem to gather their intelligence and seldom suggest changes in decor.

And yes, china cabinets, walls of books, antique typewriters, anti-war posters, my cauldron collection, maps, atlas corner, gilt frames of JFK's photos, the campaign phots of Sen John Edwards, and my very own prolific short story collection all belongs to moi.

THANKS FOR READING!
Cordially, From TEFF


© Copyright 2005 April Sunday (teffom at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Writing.Com, its affiliates and syndicates have been granted non-exclusive rights to display this work.
Log in to Leave Feedback
Username:
Password:
Not a Member?
Signup right now, for free!
All accounts include:
*Bullet* FREE Email @Writing.Com!
*Bullet* FREE Portfolio Services!
Printed from https://www.Writing.Com/view/945969