Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
Bulletin Board
>
Editor Available
date
newest »
newest »
Grammar and Plot editing.
Cover 2 Cover Editing wrote: "Grammar and Plot editing."Plot editing, as I understand it, means the author brings their work and the editor decides if the plot is strong enough. To see if the events of stories make sense, if the end goal is clear etc.
Linda, ouch! It reminds me of my first set of interviews to work as a teacher when I was basically told "we can't hire you because you lack experience." Girl's got to start somewhere. But on the other hand it is a dog eat dog world. You're just helping her get ready :)
I concur with you Linda. But all that glitters isn't gold. I have been burned by some cover artists and editors with the best looking websites out there. You have every right to alert your fellow writers of a scam. But we'll never know the quality of her true editing services based on her website alone. Please don't take offense to what I'm saying. I just know how hard it can be for people just starting out. Take Care.
Linda wrote: "Denzel wrote: "Cover 2 Cover Editing wrote: "Grammar and Plot editing."Plot editing, as I understand it, means the author brings their work and the editor decides if the plot is strong enough. To..."
Ah, well excuse me for my rudeness, but you never pointed out that the question to be specifically answered by Janet. This is a free forum and if you want something answered by one specific person, it would do you better to specify it.
Denzel wrote: "...Ah, well excuse me for my rudeness, but you never pointed out that the question to be specifically answered by Janet. This is a free forum and if you want something answered by one specific person, it would do you better to specify it."Ah. So the fact that Linda simply replied to to Janet's post instead of hitting the reply button so to first copy made it unclear whom she was addressing? And using 'you' instead of Janet's name immediately converted Linda's query to the open forum?
Which is why you answered Linda's question by copying Janet's post?
Yeah, that makes absolute sense.
Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "Denzel wrote: "...Ah, well excuse me for my rudeness, but you never pointed out that the question to be specifically answered by Janet. This is a free forum and if you want something answered by on..."The irony of this comment is astounding, no?
Denzel wrote: "The irony of this comment is astounding, no?"Nope. Unlike you, I replied to you directly. (Or rather, commented on your post.)
(And see, I don't offer up any convoluted 'justification'.)
etc: typos
Wow...all this rudeness is astounding!
@ Cover to cover editing ..I have to say that I agree with earlier posts that your website is lacking...in your "about us" I have found many errors.
Before you try to sell your editing business, first edit your website. It looks unprofessional and causes potential customers to doubt your qualifications as an editor.
Good luck in your business.
Linda: Do you know of any reputable editing / publishing companies? I am so weary of going to any mom and pop publishing companies I have in my town.
Any advice would be appreciated! :)
Janet,I have to agree about the website. If you are trying to sell services to professionals (I hope that is who you are focusing on) you need to present yourself as a professional. Having an incomplete website at launch is not a very good start. Good luck with you endevour.
J.T. Buckley
Vanessa wrote: "Wow...all this rudeness is astounding!"IKR? To defensively reply that if Linda wanted something answered by one specific person, then she needed specify that? As if most members couldn't tell to whom her query was addressed (and why)? *sigh*
Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "Vanessa wrote: "Wow...all this rudeness is astounding!"IKR? To defensively reply that if Linda wanted something answered by one specific person, then she needed specify that? As if most members..."
I think it is stemming from another thread.
@Linda: I can't believe YOU are recommending stealing how-to-write books. ;)
Thank you for the recommendation, Linda.
Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "Denzel wrote: "The irony of this comment is astounding, no?"Nope. Unlike you, I replied to you directly. (Or rather, commented on your post.)
(And see, I don't offer up any convoluted 'justifi..."
Justifications? I don't remember offering up anything of the sort, butif what you're saying is true, that it is the intention of the reply rather than the actual reply itself that matters. You shouldn't be able to reply to me, at all. I mean, my reply was to Linda, not you. Just as you chastise me for answering Linda's question because it wasn't aimed at me, shouldn't you be chastised for replying to me since my comment was intentionally at Linda and not you?
There's no justification being placed, I'm just being logical.
Goodreads is free forum, like it or not. Regardless of whatever 'direct reply' right you think you're entitled to is non-existant. Just as you are free to reply to me, although my comments are clearly directed, even more so than Linda's to Janet because I use the reply button, I am free to reply to Linda as I wish. As much as it may pain you, I am completely free to reply to whoever I see fit. Whether they ask for my opinion or not, hence the point of a free forum, and you have no say in the matter.
I think it is stemming from another thread.
I noticed.
I kind of giggle when I read this thread ...wait until Janet reads this ...I am sure she will feel like an a$$.
Vanessa wrote: "I kind of giggle when I read this thread ...wait until Janet reads this ...I am sure she will feel like an a$$."That's true. Sorry Janet, I just can't stop myself from getting into a good ol internet tussle, yeah? Reminds me of my days on 4chan. Dark times those were, but by golly I made it through.
But seriously, I'm sorry about my participation in the disruption of your thread.
Denzel wrote: "Justifications? I don't remember offering up anything of the sort, butif what you're saying is true, that it is the intention of the reply rather than the actual reply itself that matters. You shouldn't be able to reply to me, at all. I mean, my reply was to Linda, not you. Just as you chastise me for answering Linda's question because it wasn't aimed at me, shouldn't you be chastised for replying to me since my comment was intentionally at Linda and not you?...Denzel, you claim to be 19 so let me put this in terms that you can understand.
RE: your first post @ #6, you either missed the point of Linda's query to Janet or didn't care b/c you were eager to give your input. Whichever the reason, that's fine and understandable to a degree.
BUT your response @ post #11, after Linda clarified the reason for her query, was that of a child who got his hand smacked. Thus stung, you tried to justify your initial post w/ a flimsy retort of 'well, you didn't direct your question to anyone specific'.
There is a distinction between someone answering a post, as opposed to commenting on one. You answered Linda's question which was directed to someone else. I made general commentary on your answer and only copied your post for posterity. Unlike Linda's post, there were no questions in either your post or mine so they were 'fair game' (by your logic) to anyone reading this thread.
Most importantly, I didn't chastise you for answering a question not aimed at you. I made an observation on the childish BS of your response to Linda. Sorry that you missed that distinction as well.
ETA: FWIW, you also misunderstood JT's post.
Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "Denzel wrote: "Justifications? I don't remember offering up anything of the sort, butif what you're saying is true, that it is the intention of the reply rather than the actual reply itself that ma..."A: My reply to her was a simple observation of the fact that in a free forum, you don't get to pick and choose who can reply to who, and if you wish to get a reply from someone specific then you must specify. Always. Enough time on any general forum, anywhere, would fill you in on this fact. I suggest 4chan, give it a shot. My response was calm, and kind, and I even apologized for being rude in her eyes.
I don't understand where this accusation of me being childish comes from, I genuinely tried not to be rude towards her, unlike you towards me.
Did I answer her question? Yes I did. Your point? Again, free forum, I am free to answer any question and reply to any comment as I see fit. You aren't a moderator, neither of you are, so I don't see why you're so uppity.
B: I've somehow magically regressed to a nine year old. Please explain your views better to me, as the english terms you use are beyond my years.
C: Honestly I think you guys just need to get over yourselves, you don't own the site, this forum, or even this thread and I'm not breaking any rules other than some personal ones you happened to make up. Now, as much as I try to avoid offending people, your personal sense of forum etiquette doesn't mean anything beyond your keyboard, so I won't hold myself to it and will continue to reply to any comment as I see fit. Regardless of what you say, what insults you throw, or how rude you think I am.
“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” - Ricky Gervais. My favorite quote.
Now if you're done throwing your hissyfit, I think we've ruined Janet's thread enough for one day. I don' want her coming back and feeling upset because of my participation in such improper conversations. Say what you wish, I'm not going to be part of that. G'day Govna, may Saxton Hale visit you gently.
Edit: Nah, I'm pretty sure I got it. You've got some hostile feelings against me from the last thread I against you, or so he thinks.
Denzel wrote: "“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” - Ricky Gervais. My favorite quote."Ach, another misunderstanding. What gave you the impression that I'm offended? At what could I take offense?
And 'uppity'? 'Hissyfit'? Really? Please, if you want to interact w/ adults, then try to behave/post like one. Perhaps then, people will be more inclined to take you seriously. But then, 'days on 4chan' don't lend so well to that, huh?
ETA: Don't think that you need to fear for Janet. Think that she's been long gone from this thread.
Denzel wrote: "...Edit: Nah, I'm pretty sure I got it. You've got some hostile feelings against me from the last thread I against you, or so he thinks."
Really? That's what you got from JT's post? Then thanks, I rest my case.
Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "Denzel wrote: "“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” - Ricky Gervais. My favorite quote."Ach, another misunderstanding. What gave you the impression that I'm offended? At w..."
He did miss the point. I was meaning the hostility toward Linda from the other thread.
Linda wrote: "@Denzel: You wrote : "Did I answer her question? Yes I did."You may have responded to my question, Denzel, but you didn't answer it, or at least not accurately. I asked Janet what services she ..."
I would like to point out that the definition of 'answer' is a response to a question. It's accuracy or correctness are void. Hence the phrase "That's not the correct answer" and other derivatives. I answered your question, maybe not as much as you'd like, but I did answer. I didn't answer among what her services were because I don't know her services, I answered with my knowledge of what plot editing was.
Secondly, this isn't a story. This has nothing to do with my grammar or literary skills. This is a topic on the internet that you and I are discussing, at the dismay of someone else. Heck, most of the people who read this thread won't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. But I can see you're for some reason holding a grudge enough to bring it up as if this thread makes it matter somehow.
Tell me, are straw-manned ad-hominems what you wish to teach me? :3
I think this is the point where I disable notifications from this thread to avoid further damage. Bye all, and Linda, enjoy your day. See? I can be nice if you can.
Edit: Sorry Janet!
Mahala wrote: "...The "damage" has been done-by you. You certainly have done yourself no favours."IKR? Not much of a counterargument to regurgitate what Linda already covered (via her 'but you didn't answer it, or at least not accurately'). Or to confirm what Linda pointed out. HTH does that advance his point?
It confounds me that someone who seeks to be a writer doesn't understand that basic, everyday reasoning and comprehension skills can give a fair approximation of how readable and cohesive their creative output would be. But then, I'm not an author so... *shrug*
As we totter towards the 40th post of nitpicking, hairsplitting, pedantry and spluttering over a single spammy ad for a possibly dodgy editing service, I don't think anyone in this thread emerges with much dignity. Including me, probably. Let it die.
Andrew wrote: "As we totter towards the 40th post of nitpicking, hairsplitting, pedantry and spluttering over a single spammy ad for a possibly dodgy editing service, I don't think anyone in this thread emerges with much dignity. Including me, probably. Let it die."Andrew, this thread stopped being about the spammy ad from a dodgy editing service as of post #10. Janet has long abandoned this thread for those she posted in other GR groups. :)
I do agree with you that this thread should die. But I disagree with your opinion re: the 'nitpicking, hairsplitting, pedantry and spluttering' b/c that implies that this thread was for naught.
IMHO, this thread turned into a cautionary (and perhaps helpful) example of what typically occurs on GR (and probably elsewhere) when someone feels slighted and instead of responding in mature fashion, posts an emotional, knee-jerk response. And when called out for the same, digs in his heels whilst demonstrating lack of self-awareness and ability to debate in a logical manner (or being disengenuous).
Also, as Linda noted earlier, this thread turned into a mini-lesson on the importance and meaning of words―IMO, a valuable lesson for authors, established and aspiring alike. On a site such as GR, it shouldn't be a surprise that some members actually pay attention to how words are used, even on forum posts.
As a reader, this thread also represents one of the major errors made by some authors on GR (and again, probably elsewhere)―to wit, recklessly posting w/o regard to consequences. Whilst a regular GR member may suffer damage to personal reputation (whatever import that has on the 'net), authors have products to sell and therefore risk damage to their professional reputation. Thus, whether or not I emerge w/ dignity from this particular exchange is irrelevant to me and my life. (It's also a determination made by others so there's only so much in my control.) However, whether or not an author emerges w/ dignity from something like this is an entirely different matter.
Young Denzel has yet to grasp that concept. He has yet to realise that as someone with a GR author profile, he is posting in his professional capacity. And given that this site is about books, it's not a far stretch for members to read his posts and wonder about his books. It's also not a far stretch that if they are turned off by him, then it's highly likely that they won't be inclined to buy his books.
Of course, all of the above are my casual opinions and observations, which people are free to dismiss. But hopefully, they will agree that your mere single post doesn't sully you in any way. :)
You can contact me at cover2coverediting@gmail.com
Also, a blog page has been created to share more information with our authors. This page can be found at: http://cover2coverediting.webs.com/
As I am new to editing ... as a business I am offering $10 off to the first five people that sign up for my services.
Happy Reading
Janet Reade