Blogs

Carlie Lee

Carlie Lee is an editor for Pen Friends UK, an editing and critique service for writers.

The peer review peril

27.11.07

Apparently, the UK publishing industry is in the thrall of the celebrity at the moment, and we are neglecting our 'seed corn' of the future. You would imagine then, that the new peer-assessment writers' sites are a good thing; giving new writers feedback, support and, since the quiet closure of the slush-piles, a stage on which to shine.

But look a little closer and the methodology starts to look eerily familiar. So familiar that you start checking sites for the SYCO logo.

The idea of a writers' site is one of natural selection. A writer joins the site, uploads his work, and enters in to an exchange system of reviews. The better the reviews, the higher the writer rises in the charts and eventually, if he's really good, he hits the ceiling and his work is critiqued by an industry pro. It sounds civilised in theory, but it has a flaw far greater than any talent contest; it doesn't take in to account the vagaries, or abilities, of the people reviewing; in other words, the P-Factor.

A recent example would be a book called 'Mrs Ord', by unpublished author Shaddow (sic) on YouWriteOn (one of the best writer's sites). Shaddow is undoubtedly talented; characters, plot and narrative are all delivered with originality and verve. He has a few minor problem areas, but nothing that couldn't be addressed by an experienced editor and re-worked. It was shocking therefore to read some of his reviews; one of which was a hysterical rant about spelling and punctuation. Yes, those things are important, but because of one pedantic pedagogue hell-bent on eliminating 'typo's' (sic), a potential seed-corn has been stamped so far down that it is fossilisation, rather than germination, that is the likely outcome.

Added to the problem of thick reviewers is that of writerly-nepotism. If you've spent hours in forums chatting to Ink Spot (such a sweetie), are you more likely to grant him a favourable review? More favourable anyway than MayB, who slated your characterisation and narrative voice a few weeks ago. Not to mention that MayB was one above you in the ratings

Are Writers' Sites the seed-corn champions of the future? Well, they certainly have a part to play, but can no way be considered the definitive successor of the slush piles. 
Our authors need nurturing and investment, as much now as they ever did in the past. Otherwise, what's the next step? The general public voting on authors before a celebrity panel? Um. Crackers.

Add comment

By posting on this website you agree to the Bookseller Comments Policy. Comments go direct to live, please be relevant, brief and definitely not abusive. Report any "unsuitable" comments by clicking the links.

Name

Comment

Email

Comments on this article

By Emma Barnes

"The general public voting on authors before a celebrity panel?...Crackers" If you think about it, though, not really as crackers as having a minority of people in their ivory towers dictating what millions of others should be allowed to read.

27 Nov 07 12:43

Unsuitable?

By Rich

The basic idea is fine, and offers a proving ground and possibly wider range of inputs and ideas than an aspiring author might have received through traditional means. However, the authors have to both realise and accept that leaving it to open review means that anybody can review it. That sounds stupid, but it's crucial. It means people who may have a bee in their bonnet about certain things (such as punctuation), happen to dislike the subject in question, are simply having a bad day and want something to vent out on to, or have their own agenda (such as the fact that they may drop in the ratings themselves - having a ranking system definitely affects things), can - and will - write, shall we say, unconstructive comments. Perhaps one part solution would be for all items to be uploaded anonymously?

27 Nov 07 21:33

Unsuitable?

By xfmjunky

Does netiquette not count on these sights? Would a set of conduct rules and an overseer be a step down a slippery slope into a bureaucratic quagmire? Perhaps making near-ranking peers automatically inelligable for critcism? Frankly, its all heartbreakingly reminiscent of the bullying typical of other similar networking sights on the internet. Another idea might be giving the members a rating as critics. You're classified before you join by taking into account your experience; professional editors and agents are given a high % point, published writers or writing grads a little lower and casual writers (though no doubt as interested and dedicated to writing as the rest) given rating lower still. These % ratings for criticisms can also be moderated and modified by the community, a causal member can rise the ciritical ranks in the same manner as they might the creative as equally a high-flying industry editor who is deemed to be full of the brown stuff might sink (lovely image) ... I daresay though that even a system like this could be abused by the truly callous.

28 Nov 07 11:24

Unsuitable?

By Harry Bingham

Of course first-time writers need editorial feedback. We professional authors make full use of it, so why the heck should first-timers need it any less? At the same time, asking amateurs to teach amateurs is a rather hopeful approach, whether the subject under study is writing or bull-fighting. The best answer, of course, is for first-timers either to sign up for top-notch courses (if they want general advice) or to pay for top quality editorial advice from professional authors / teachers (if they want specific feedback on their manuscript). Neither of these options are free, but then a lot of free stuff is worth just what you pay for it. Our service at the Writers' Workshop has helped thousands of writers; we get massive positive feedback; and we're growing all the time. Doesn't that suggest something about what works best for writers?

28 Nov 07 11:48

Unsuitable?

By Dante

There's a comment by PT Barnum that said "No-one ever lost a cent underestimating the stupidity of the general public". In the case of peer review sites, I reckon you have to have a level of self-confidence in your work and recognise that there are a lot of people out there with "issues" who might be reviewing your piece. One of the main problems is that if you've been constructive in pointing out some of the flaws in others work it can come back to bite you bum. I've seen my share of over-zealous grammarians and jealous invective on YouWriteOn--however, there are also good people who'll give you decent feedback. It's like joining any other writers circle--a third will like it, a third will hate it, and a third will be too dumb to "get it".

28 Nov 07 17:16

Unsuitable?

See Also