Home « Forum « Editors/Reviewers Hangout

Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

Looking for a reviewer of emotion and connection

Lugh

Some of the most popular stories, it seems, are those where one connects with the mind, and perhaps soul, of the narrator. While I mostly write about things with one or many of truth, I haven't previously done so at length, and in the first person.

In my present work in progress, I am trying to break through those barriers. Every character is real and starts out with real interactions, but does get into do-over, moving toward a polyamory that I've thought about. I use my real first name, Howard, not a pen name, although I haven't decided if that will continue on posting -- all other names are of real people.

What I want for initial review is someone that isn't there for copy edit -- I think I'm pretty good there. What I want is someone that can say that an interaction is or is not plausible, that they can or cannot connect with a character.

There's MF and lots of FF (some real friends exploring what they wanted). Friendly watersports and perhaps erotic pain but absolutely no humiliation. Haven't yet decided to include any MM or trans. I like to write fairly extensive visual descriptions of people and outfits.

I suspect I'll close this at around six substantial chapters, but with a definite followon possibility. If and when I post, it will be complete. Right now, I'd call it about two-thirds done, but interim reviews would tell me if I'm on the right track.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Crumbly Writer

You could always use the "relatively realistic" tag. :)

Replies:   Lugh
Lugh

@Crumbly Writer

Had missed that tag, but what I'm trying to find is thoughts on the writing style itself. It's always a challenge, for example, to introduce people's thinking not in a lecture form, but with interactions among characters.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Lugh

Had missed that tag, but what I'm trying to find is thoughts on the writing style itself. It's always a challenge, for example, to introduce people's thinking not in a lecture form, but with interactions among characters.

It was an inside joke. I suggested, in jest, adding a new tag for all the stories which don't feature 12" cocks or 40" breaks.

But I was under the impression you wanted editors to tell you whether the sex was over the top, rather than your writing style.

Just as an aside, I wouldn't count on 'real life' experiences to make the story real. Generally, most of us sprinkle real-life events into our fictional characters, drawing from what we know to make them real. Besides, if you stick to what you know, you run out of material real fast.

Ross at Play
Updated:

I cannot find "Lugh" in either authors or editors lists.
I suggest you provide a pen name here so we can send emails to you directly.

Replies:   Lugh
Ross at Play

@Lugh

What I want is someone that can say that an interaction is or is not plausible, that they can or cannot connect with a character.

Is "beta-reader" the right expression for this?
Although I'm assuming beta-readers attempt to identify implausible elements they see in the plot as well.

Replies:   Lugh  Crumbly Writer
Lugh

@Ross at Play

LughIldanach in the lists.

My name is Howard, and my direct email is hcb@netcases.net, or one reserved for SOL, e@netcases.net.

Lugh

@Ross at Play

Beta reader is very good, as distinct from editor.

Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

Is "beta-reader" the right expression for this?
Although I'm assuming beta-readers attempt to identify implausible elements they see in the plot as well.

Not really. Beta-readers are people who'll tell you things you don't recognize in your own story ("I really hate character A because ..." or "this segment doesn't make any sense because ..."). It's more a matter of perception rather than editing.

Typically, what he's referring to are content issues, though it's only a small segment of what content editors tackle.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

I've always assumed that an editor is concerned with story content, characters, continuity, etc.; that proofreaders are just there to check spelling, syntax, etc, i.e. the mechanical aspect of writing; that reviewers (as used here at SOL) refer to those critiquing the story in a print review that's attached to the story. Admittedly, the first two can overlap significantly although the latter one is a stand alone function.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Jim S

I've always assumed that an editor is concerned with story content, characters, continuity, etc.; that proofreaders are just there to check spelling, syntax, etc.

You are missing at least one extra level in there.
I cannot do what you describe as an "editor", but I do much more than a "proofreader".
My specialty is looking for things like:
* alternative words or phrases that sound more natural
* rewording sentences to make them clearer, more concise, or read more smoothly
* identifying not just redundancies, but things readers would already know from what else is present, or just simply do not add anything to the story.
***
I do not know what expressions others would use to distinguish between those types of editors.

Back to Top