October Feature: Review a Cotillion Fic
This past year has seen one of the greatest challenge turnouts that I have personally ever seen. The Inaugural Great Hall Cotillion churned out 72 (not a typo) stories, and 69 of them were complete by the deadline. In this challenge, which was derived by your very own fearless leader, there was a celebration of love stories of all kinds: sad, happy, angsty, fluffy, and everything in between.
I challenge you to go forth, find one of these stories, and leave the author a stunning review to complement their completion of such an arduous challenge. The challenge thread can be found here: http://fanfiction.mugglenet.com/foru...read.php?68647
As always, ask and answer a TQ. Here are a couple to get you started:
Do pairings selected for shock factor have to live up to a higher standard to you as a reader?
Would you read something you find categorically impossible or extremely implausible just to see if the author can prove you right or wrong?
Do pairing-driven stories stay with you more, less, or the same as plot-driven stories?
This activity is due by the end of the day on November 15th.
October Discussion: Concrit and You
When I first joined MNFF as a member, I feel quite embarrassed that it took me about a year to figure out what concrit actually stands for. If you have had similar difficulty, its an abbreviation of 'constructive criticism'. Honestly, though, in its full length, I think it changes what the word means to us.
Often, in my travels of SPEW membership, 'concrit' has been offered up in reviews, but there have been times that I've wondered what was constructive about it. If, say, someone comments that a comma is wrong or that they do not agree with a character's interpretation, does that genuinely help an author? I know of a very prominent MNFF writer who received multiple reviews from a long-gone member of SPEW, and most of them were maligning the author's characterisation based upon the reviewer's opinion. That event is one of the catalysts of how SPEW is being run today.
What I would like to see you all discuss, my wonderful disciples, is what makes criticism constructive and what sort of critique can you bring to the table that is based in fact or pre-established assumption of truth (like canon or general consensus). As always, ask and answer one TQ, and I'll post a couple to get you started. I heavily encourage returning to this discussion because it's a very enriching one when it comes to your role as a professional reviewer.
When you bring a point of contention up in a review, what sort of bases do you cite as your reasoning?
Have you ever found yourself searching for reasons to discount something?
Do you think a review with little or no criticism carries the same weight as one laced with concrit?
As always, this activity is due to be completed by the end of the day on November 15th.