Subject: This doesn't reassure me.
Author:
Posted on: 2014-05-23 00:58:00 UTC

I want to explain why without being a jerk. I'm not sure that's entirely possible, but please try to read this as me writing out what's happening in my head rather than, like, "I hate you; please die" or something.

I don't hate you; please don't die. But what I'm getting most strongly from your responses to me and Pippa's Ghost is basically as follows:

1. This is still just a setup for Imaginations Collide to you. I see this as a problem because A) you figure it's okay leave information out of your Permission stories because it's eventually going to be explained in/by IC, and B) because of the terrible catastrophe it involves. I am still and will be forever against involving the PPC in a terrible catastrophe for the sake of the separate project that's leeching care and attention to detail from work that is supposed to impress us.

2. "Suemonia? Did I accidently leave that in there? I must have accidentally used an older version of his bio." ... So you didn't check over your request thoroughly enough to make sure it was the version you actually wanted us to read before you posted it?

2.5. The italics thing. I grant that this is minor, but you could have waited to post until you figured out the HTML, or you could have put the writing samples in a separate location where you could make it work and given us the URL. You knew you might be jumping the gun on asking again, and Flower speech was specifically pointed out to you as something to fix. (Also, for future reference, words in *asterisks* get auto-corrected to bold in some word processors and chat clients [and /slashes/ are used for italics]. That's why it looked more like an error in understanding than an error in word choice to me.)

3. Speaking of links, I linked to the character with the neuralyzer problem in my post. You could have clicked on it to get the name, and then I could be sure you really know about the character. It would have been super-easy and won you PPC Knowledge Points. Yet you didn't. This is incomprehensible to me. (Also, my point in bringing her up was that using a neuralyzer to violate someone's mind for personal gain is really, really icky, not something even a prankster would do if she's got a shred of human decency about her. I never wrote Cameo as a real agent for a reason.)

4. Okay, so Wells wasn't given random highly addictive superpower pills to treat her depression. That's good. Instead, she was given random highly addictive superpower pills for no reason at all, at least not that you felt important enough to tell us here. That's... not good.

5. While I grant you it makes sense for a former Suvian to speak in doggerel Shakespearean, the primary reason you give for this is "I tried to do it correctly, but it's really hard to do." And I mean, yes, sometimes things are too much of a bother, so you make a different choice, and that's good, but this? Instead of choosing to do something different, you're choosing to do something badly. Deliberately-bad can be a legitimate choice, but not when it's because you actually can't do it correctly.

I realize I'm focusing on the negative here (which is why I'm not going to make the final decision), and I do appreciate that you can take concrit and really want to improve as a writer. My problem is, I'm a person who notices patterns, sometimes to the point of distraction, and I keep seeing this pattern of underlying carelessness as shown by the examples above. Concrit and good intentions can't fix that. Only giving the necessary time and attention to your work can fix that. I would like to see time and attention in a Permission request, not promises that I'll see it later when you write the real story. Show, don't tell, yes?

~Neshomeh

Reply Return to messages