Subject: Who reviews the reviewers?
Author:
Posted on: 2017-05-30 02:29:00 UTC

First, responding to some of your individual points:
-I'm glad the descriptions were decent, as that's one of my weak points in writing. (Looking back, I see I've failed to describe Gwenda's or Therwin's clothes much. :( ) I admit, I don't really have a good mind's eye view of Gwenda yet, hence the fall-back on "average everything." I do tend to use em dashes for breaks in narration rather than parentheses, since the latter feels a little "in-text author's note" to me.

-"Therwin himself" is to separate Therwin's description from Gwenda's in the previous paragraph, though I see your point that it may not be needed in light of being in separate paragraphs.

-Thank you for pointing out typos!

-Gwenda's daughter has not yet appeared on screen. In fact, I didn't know she had a daughter in the PP...il I got to that paragraph . . .

-I suspect the DMFF gets quite a few applicants who "just love animals," whether they're familiar with fanfiction/the PPC or not!

-I did fail to explain the "mud," partly due to pacing. It's actually coconut fiber, often used as substrate for reptiles. It starts out as dry bricks, but breaks apart into a somewhat muddy damp mess when soaked in water. I'll be sure to explain that better in the published version.

-Ashe's hair is cut (and dyed) the way she likes it. :)

-Big Red's behaviors in this story are 100% true-to-life for a certain lizard I know.

-Re: mistaking Therwin's boot for being on Ashe: I had an unusual amount of difficulty in this story following the "one paragraph per one character's actions" guideline, partly due to pacing. I'll be sure to look at those paragraphs, and this one in particular to see if I can make them more clear.

-re: Gwenda being shocked: The main "theme" of this story (if a story this short can be said to have one) is the difference of perspective between someone who works closely with animals daily, and someone who . . . shall we say likes the concept of animals, without having much practical hands-on experience with them? And I think Therwin understands that difference, and the potential for problems it creates both ways, better than the other two characters here.

-Glad the Rc description is good (though I do tend to be better with location descriptions than character descriptions). I know it's a bit more modification than most RCs see, and I'll definitely need to address why Ashe's hasn't been raided by BM yet, but this story didn't have space for that explanation.

-I meant to get across that Ashe was amused by Therwin using her RC as a "breaking-in" of newbies, by her laughter. I'll check that paragraph out more closely on my second go-through as well.

-I am disappointed that I didn't manage to get across Gwenda's and Ashe's thought patterns more clearly, as their opposing worldviews was meant to be a main point of this story. In retrospect, I did end up writing it mostly from Therwin's point-of-view, when it might have been better served from Gwenda's perspective. On the other hand, as you said, it's a very short piece, and is really just an introduction for a new spin-off, where the characters will have a lot more space to grow moving forward. I'll have to stop and consider whether overhauling this whole story to be Gwenda's narrative voice will be worth it in the long run.

In a more broad sense: I'm typically used to getting beta work done in prose/paragraph form, rather than as bullets, but I found I rather liked it this way. It makes it easier for me to address each point without losing anything amidst a set of prose. Also, when I do beta work, I often save the typing for the end, so i can address the whole story from a thematic, whole perspective, but I may sometimes miss smaller questions that way. I think I may try this approach in the future, at least in part.

I also like that your responses are mostly calling my writing decisions into question. I know there's a saying that a beta should have bad points sandwiched in between good points, but honestly, I like getting bad points better, as that shows me what needs to get fixed. Pointing out the good places is good too, but knowing the RC description came out well means I can look past it now; it's the problem areas I like to focus on in a review.

And thank you for reviewing this, even though I took so long to post it!

Reply Return to messages