Rejected, Corrected, Rejected, no explanation?

[Moon Glade]

I have submitted several stories on here and recently submitted a new one. I sometimes vacillate between British placement of quotation marks and US placement. For that reason the story was rejected so I made the requested corrections and resubmitted. The story was rejected again? I then went over the story with a fine tooth comb and resubmitted again. Again it was rejected. No explanation. I sent an email requesting an explanation and have never heard back.

Has anyone else had an experience like this or am I for some reason on the wrong side of Laurel and Manu?

Moon Glade

 

[SimonDoom]

I have submitted several stories on here and recently submitted a new one. I sometimes vacillate between British placement of quotation marks and US placement. For that reason the story was rejected so I made the requested corrections and resubmitted. The story was rejected again? I then went over the story with a fine tooth comb and resubmitted again. Again it was rejected. No explanation. I sent an email requesting an explanation and have never heard back.

Has anyone else had an experience like this or am I for some reason on the wrong side of Laurel and Manu?

Moon Glade

Send Laurel a private message fulling explaining the situation and your case.

 

[KeithD]

I've never known of a case where there was no explanation, nor have I seen this borne out when it was claimed. That said, I don't think the explanations are always helpful enough and a lot of grief would be saved everyone if the editor actually verified that the rejection was for a legitimate reason (but if she did, she couldn't keep up with the volume of submissions without more help, which the Web site doesn't appear willing to invest in).

I've seen British system quotes making it through. I can understand why they wouldn't, though. This is a U.S.-based site using American system style. The problem is probably internal inconsistency. Sorry, but it would be natural if the site editor isn't up to snuff on British usage on a U.S.-based site.

But the problem may be for something else altogether that you aren't aware of being challenged. We can't know if this is a separate problem or not or if you haven't managed to satisfy the original rejection or not. Someone with experience in unsnarling these issues would have to volunteer to look at what you have.

On another issue, the site doesn't respond to e-mails (yes, that's not good and is a problem they are causing and leaving it to the other users to explain). You can only reach the sole site submissions editor, Laurel, via the site's Private Message (PM) system, upper right of this page if you have PMs turned on. If you don't (not having PMs turned on automatically is another site-caused problem), you can do so by clicking on the "User CP" tab at the upper left of this page.

 

[Moon Glade]

My problem is inconsistency between the British and American formats and I had missed several mistakes of that type. I did get feedback finally and I has missed a couple corrections. Hopefully this time I was accurate in my corrections and my story will be better for it. I also cleaned up a couple of ungainly sentences. Too often when I read my own work I find it difficult to catch my own errors even after three or more re-reads.

Thank for you input on how the site works and how to make contact.

Moon Glade

 

[Moon Glade]

Thank for you input on how the site works and how to make contact.

Yikes! That sentence makes (unfortunately) my previous point. Should read, "Thanks for your input on how the site works and howl to make contact.

 

[Moon Glade]

That's 'how' not howl. Think I better quit before I make more of a fool of myself

 

[LAHomedog]

My problem is inconsistency between the British and American formats and I had missed several mistakes of that type.

Hopefully this time I was accurate in my corrections and my story will be better for it. I also cleaned up a couple of ungainly sentences. Too often when I read my own work I find it difficult to catch my own errors even after three or more re-reads.

Moon Glade

This is why it is helpful to work with an editor. I have also had this problem in the past and now work with a beta reader and a proof-reader. It helps.

I have helped three UK writers who had work rejected for various reasons including the differences between "The King's English" and American usage. If you desire, you can send me our story via the "contact" function from my page and I'll gladly look at it. Or go to the volunteer editors page. There are many folks who help authors here.

 

[LAHomedog]

This is a U.S.-based site using American system style. The problem is probably internal inconsistency.

I had no idea! I always thought this was a UK site that had expanded its reach.

 

[LAHomedog]

My problem is inconsistency between the British and American formats and I had missed several mistakes of that type. I did get feedback finally and I has missed a couple corrections. Hopefully this time I was accurate in my corrections and my story will be better for it. I also cleaned up a couple of ungainly sentences. Too often when I read my own work I find it difficult to catch my own errors even after three or more re-reads.

Thank for you input on how the site works and how to make contact.

Moon Glade

Thank you for sending me your story to read. You are a very good writer, but you have major punctuation mistakes. I think that is why your story is being rejected. I sent you a PM with my thoughts and how I believe you can correct them. Good luck.

 

[Rustyoznail]

Thank you for sending me your story to read. You are a very good writer, but you have major punctuation mistakes. I think that is why your story is being rejected. I sent you a PM with my thoughts and how I believe you can correct them. Good luck.

Grammarly is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it is useful to pick up the gross errors before you send it to an editor. Saves everyone time.

Good luck!

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Grammarly doesn't know what dialog is. It dislikes phrases that people might normally use when talking with other people.

Phrases like "it was like a vicious storm."

Or just the work "Really?"

Of "In fact,"

Etc.

It also doesn't like commas that it hasn't suggested.

 

[soulhouse]

Excuse my ignorance as a British person, but what's the difference between British and US placement of quotation marks, please?

 

[yowser]

Excuse my ignorance as a British person, but what's the difference between British and US placement of quotation marks, please?

Typically Americans put punctuation inside quotes (and use double-quotation marks) while UK punctuation is outside quotation marks.

US: “I’m going to the store,” he said.

UK: ‘I’m going to the store’, he said.

 

[XerXesXu]

Excuse my ignorance as a British person, but what's the difference between British and US placement of quotation marks, please?

US = prescriptive.
UK = permissive.

Traditionally the UK usage was the same as US, and was what I was taught. Some modern authors choose to use ' instead of " which necessitates " for quoting within quotes. It's authorial preference, but, of course, you must be consistent within one work.

 

[gordo12]

It also doesn't like commas that it hasn't suggested.

Yes, but it also doesn't flag them. I think it was JustPlainBob that said he never met a comma he didn't like. I'm guilty of that sin too!

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Yes, but it also doesn't flag them. I think it was JustPlainBob that said he never met a comma he didn't like. I'm guilty of that sin too!

Grammarly, is always flagging comma I put in to make sense of a sentence. I tell it to ignore and wanting comma placed where I don't want them.

 

[LAHomedog]

Grammarly, is always flagging comma I put in to make sense of a sentence. I tell it to ignore and wanting comma placed where I don't want them.

I once had an English professor tell me I had "diarrhea of the comma," and give me an F on a paper.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Typically Americans put punctuation inside quotes (and use double-quotation marks) while UK punctuation is outside quotation marks.

US: “I’m going to the store,” he said.

UK: ‘I’m going to the store’, he said.

I've been reading English English for half a century, and I don't think I've ever seen punctuation outside quotation marks as you show it. I've seen this said before, so checked it just now from some Brit grammar "how to" sites, and couldn't find it in the two or three I looked at.

I'm going to call on Sam Scribble to provide an answer, because he's an English writer of English, whereas I might just be confused .

 

[yowser]

I've been reading English English for half a century, and I don't think I've ever seen punctuation outside quotation marks as you show it. I've seen this said before, so checked it just now from some Brit grammar "how to" sites, and couldn't find it in the two or three I looked at.

I'm going to call on Sam Scribble to provide an answer, because he's an English writer of English, whereas I might just be confused .

I read a fair amount in both literatures, these patterns are mostly what I'm familiar with.

Here's one source in support:

https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/quotation_(speech)_marks_punctuation_in_or_out.htm

 

[ElectricBlue]

I read a fair amount in both literatures, these patterns are mostly what I'm familiar with.

Here's one source in support:

https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/quotation_(speech)_marks_punctuation_in_or_out.htm

I've just flicked through half a dozen John LeCarre novels - as English a writer as you'll ever get - all dialogue punctuation is inside the 'inverted commas.' I don't think I've ever seen it outside, as per the source you quoted.

Digging a bit deeper - I see that there are subtleties within both the American and British styles that can place punctuation outside the quoted sentence, for example, in a non-fiction work, whereas dialogue seems to be consistently "punctuate within the quotation marks," which makes sense to me because you're quoting what someone has said, so you're quoting their self-contained sentence.

Interesting - both "systems" allow both conventions, and the subtlety can be fiction versus non-fiction, or dialogue versus a quotation - which aren't the same thing. Since I'm writing fiction, I'll stick to the "internal' convention" - not that I've used anything else.

 

[XerXesXu]

I've been reading English English for half a century, and I don't think I've ever seen punctuation outside quotation marks as you show it. I've seen this said before, so checked it just now from some Brit grammar "how to" sites, and couldn't find it in the two or three I looked at.

I'm going to call on Sam Scribble to provide an answer, because he's an English writer of English, whereas I might just be confused .

#meneither

This is an example given:

'The US and UK Conventions for Commas and Periods (Full Stops) Are Different
Look at the first comma and the final period (full stop) in the example below. Should they be inside or outside the quotation marks? Well, it depends what writing convention you're following. This example is written in the US writing convention.
"Bindle," to today’s youth, means "a small pack of drug powder."
Here is the same example in the UK convention.
"Bindle", to today’s youth, means "a small pack of drug powder". '

In this context I would never put double quotes around anything that is not a quote, I would use a single quote, and the comma would go outside.

I think we see prescriptivists believing there must be a rule and imagining one where none exists.

 

[KeithD]

In this context I would never put double quotes around anything that is not a quote, I would use a single quote, and the comma would go outside.

And that would be the British style. The U.S. style is to use double quotes at the first level of any use. Alwaysalwaysalways. (Chicago Manual of Style 16, 13.28)

 

[XerXesXu]

Alwaysalwaysalways. (Chicago Manual of Style 16, 13.28)

Sounds prescriptivist to me.