First story. Need editor

[ezio2111]

I just finished my first ever story, and I've been having trouble finding an editor.
I've had a few who I have contacted and said to send my story to them, but after that never heard from them again, I've had some who were too busy, and others who never replied back.

All this was through the editor program Literotica has, so I figured I'd try here on the forum.

Story codes are MF, Cons. I'm thinking of making it into a series, and its a little over 8,000 words.

Any takers?

 

[sr71plt]

Who are these "editors" in the volunteer editor program who stiffed you? If you name them, maybe others won't spin wheels contacting them. Or maybe they'll have a reasonable explanation for leaving you high and dry.

 

[LadyVer]

Don't name names on here. You never know why people don't respond. Maybe someone had a heart attack reading a story or had a hard attack because they don't get out much, etc. This is a porn board, Pilot, not a literary magazine, or the FBI.

So the story is M-F, consensual? What category you putting the story in? Just curious.

LOL Just caught my "hard" attack error. I think I'll leave it as is.

 

[ezio2111]

Yeah I wasn't going to name the people, I'm sure they had their reasons.

And to answer your question, it's in the celeb category, but I don't think all chapters are going to involve celebrities. But still not sure.

 

[sr71plt]

Don't name names on here. You never know why people don't respond. Maybe someone had a heart attack reading a story or had a hard attack because they don't get out much, etc. This is a porn board, Pilot, not a literary magazine, or the FBI.

What's the relevance of this to someone claiming they'll provide services that they don't? What does this being a porn board have to do with anything?

I see absolutely no reason not to name names and help get a broken volunteer editor system here cleaned up--or at least be fair to the writers seeking editors. My post acknowledged that there may be reasons the communications weren't maintained. I see no reason why the air shouldn't be cleared on that too. If not worked out in the open, a writer very well could be blackballing an editor behind his/her back when the communications just weren't getting delivered.

Why so defensive on this LadyVer?

This is an endemic writer complaint here. There's no reason why the writers should be victimized by this with no recourse.

 

[LadyVer]

What's the relevance of this to someone claiming they'll provide services that they don't? What does this being a porn board have to do with anything?

I see absolutely no reason not to name names and help get a broken volunteer editor system here cleaned up--or at least be fair to the writers seeking editors. My post acknowledged that there may be reasons the communications weren't maintained. I see no reason why the air shouldn't be cleared on that too. If not worked out in the open, a writer very well could be blackballing an editor behind his/her back when the communications just weren't getting delivered.

Why so defensive on this LadyVer?

This is an endemic writer complaint here. There's no reason why the writers should be victimized by this with no recourse.

Pilot, I have nothing to hide, nor am I defensive. What I have a problem with is a practice of stating in a public forum what someone has done or hasn't done as a volunteer editor on a porn board. That would be like me revealing publicly which authors have been asses behind the scenes to get their stories edited. If writers have problems with editors and can't resolve them on their own, they need to take it to Laurel instead of having a public witch hunt.

Good editors are hard to find, especially those who aren't getting paid. Lit writers are all adults. If they're unable to find a volunteer editor via a forum, the Editor's Profile, a story, or via networking, they have other options than whining about what a terrible editor program Lit has.

 

[sr71plt]

Anyone who hangs out a shingle as an editor and either doesn't respond at all or cuts off response in the middle of a transaction isn't a good editor, and writers deserve knowing who these people are so they can be avoided. I acknowledged that there could be explainable circumstances in my first post--and that these should be handled in the open to help other writers looking for an editor here. I see no reason to assume there are. This is overly protecting the claimed editors and doing the writers a disservice. There's nothing wrong in weeding out the dead wood in the volunteer editor system if the Web site won't police it.

I don't feel your pain or agree with your reasoning.

The current system of "editors" noting their availability on a month-to-month basis is the best fix we've got. But if one of those doesn't maintain correspondence, there's no reason not to name them here as well--and give them a chance to explain their side of the breakdown.

You aren't being supportive of the writers here, and I don't think that a writer who thinks he/she has been burned by someone claiming to be an editor here and won't try to protect other writers from the same experience here is being supportive to fellow writers either.

 

[LadyVer]

Anyone who hangs out a shingle as an editor and either doesn't respond at all or cuts off response in the middle of a transaction isn't a good editor, and writers deserve knowing who these people are so they can be avoided. I acknowledged that there could be explainable circumstances in my first post--and that these should be handled in the open to help other writers looking for an editor here. I see no reason to assume there are. This is overly protecting the claimed editors and doing the writers a disservice. There's nothing wrong in weeding out the dead wood in the volunteer editor system if the Web site won't police it.

I don't feel your pain or agree with your reasoning.

The current system of "editors" noting their availability on a month-to-month basis is the best fix we've got. But if one of those doesn't maintain correspondence, there's no reason not to name them here as well--and give them a chance to explain their side of the breakdown.

You aren't being supportive of the writers here.

When editors and writers on this site are all professionals who get paid for their work, then you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, you are beating a dead horse, although I could see that discussions like this could or should make a Litster think twice before volunteering as an editor.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't see where being professional or not trumps not communicating over not carrying through on an agreement made. I think your argument is just irrelevant--and again, trying to protect claimed editors not carrying through with their agreements. Some of those "editors"--if they continue to be protected by people like you--are just trolling for manuscripts they can post elsewhere as their own.

If a writer feels he/she is being shafted in an arrangement with a claimed editor on Literotica, they owe it to their fellow writers to raise a flag. It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with professional/not professional. It has everything to do with being a good citizen and caring for others. If there are mitigating circumstances (as I have continuously allowed for throughout this discussion), they can come out in public--if trying to get them straightened out in private hasn't worked.

And there's no reason why anyone shouldn't be thinking hard about listing as a volunteer editor. If they have no experience in editing and/or no intention of carrying through with agreements they've made, they shouldn't be volunteering for the job.

It simply isn't true that a bad or uncommunicative or agreement-breaking editor is better than no editor at all.

 

[sr71plt]

I could see that discussions like this could or should make a Litster think twice before volunteering as an editor.

Again, this is precisely the point. If a volunteer editor isn't going to do the job, he/she should no longer be advertising as a volunteer editor--or going through the motions of pretending to be a volunteer editor. The writers should cooperate in weeding them out if the Web site isn't going to police the program. They owe it to each other.

A bad or uncommunicative editor is not better than no editor at all. At a site like this, is better just to go ahead and post your best effort.

 

[LadyVer]

I believe it's more of an issue of professionalism than protecting anyone. To me, it doesn't look too professional or mature to out someone publicly on a volunteer porn site for not responding to an email or to a writer's request. Maybe the editor had to move, maybe they're no longer Lit members, maybe they're going through a crisis. Maybe they died. Maybe they didn't like the porn story a writer sent them and didn't want to tell the writer that it sucked. Etc. If the editor had done something illegal or so egregious, maybe I could understand people wanting to publicize it.

People come and go here. They have lives and responsibilities outside Lit. To expect volunteer editors to be held to a higher standard is unrealistic. I've had writers disappear for various reasons, then pop up days and weeks later with the stories they finally processed my edits on. I've even had writers pop up after days and weeks of no communication who then expect me to push my other editing projects aside for theirs. And I've had writers tell me not to rush, that they're flexible, which is really nice.

As I've said before, it would be nice if all volunteer editors responded within a reasonable time frame and were also dependable with editing. But again, Lit is an all volunteer porn story platform.

 

[PennLady]

If you put your (user)name on a free-to-the-public website, I don't think you then have a big expectation of privacy.

If you put your name out as an editor, and then do not respond to requests, there is nothing wrong with someone saying, "Authors, please note that JohnDoe23 did not respond to my requests for editing." There doesn't have to be any speculation, or any insults, or anything like that. Certainly, someone could be sick, have moved, whatever, but I don't see how someone saying X didn't respond is "outing" anything about them. It's just a statement of fact.

As for professionalism, even on a volunteer level, the "professional" thing to do is to respond (nicely, one hopes) whether the answer is positive or negative. It is not "professional" to say "I'm open!" and then be closed with no word. You could argue that the really professional thing to do, if you are no longer editing, is to delete your profile. If that isn't possible, then edit it to say you're no longer editing.

 

[LadyVer]

I realize I'm very new to Lit compared to you, Pilot. To me, the editor's program is not broken. It is what it is. Could it be better? Sure, but I don't see there are the resources for it.

Instead of focusing on those who don't meet or measure up to the criteria for a professional editor, and who may never pop up on Lit again, why not focus on finding editors with professional editing experience, especially those who are willing to edit voluntarily and have experience with porn? Maybe posting a thread in the Editor's Forum, possibly posting it for discussion on other erotica forums or even job boards? As far as those Lit members who have volunteered for editing and don't respond or aren't dependable, I thought when they were reported that Laurel took action, maybe deleting their editor profile. Does she not do this?

I've seen a few ads on freelance boards by Lit authors who were looking to pay someone to edit their Lit stories. I thought it was kind of weird, but I guess they had trouble finding a good volunteer editor as well and could afford to pay for the editing.

 

[lovecraft68]

Naming names just seems petty and trust me it took me a bit to consider it that way because there is one here I would like to warn everyone about, but I guess at the end of the day snitching is not my thing.

Also due to the nature of the internet and the massive amount of BS thrown around on these boards My assumption would be half the "naming" would be more out of spite than there being any actual truth.

The trolls here do not need another option to spread their crap.

 

[sr71plt]

I certainly would acknowledge that you are a champion when it comes to spite posting, LC.

Interesting to find folks here who don't want to support the writers.

 

[lovecraft68]

I certainly would acknowledge that you are a champion when it comes to spite posting, LC.

Interesting how many here don't want to support the writers.

And who, exactly am I spiting?

But know what? You make a good point about supporting the writers here.

Need to look no further than the AH. A thread about amazon's purging of erotica got about 20 posts, but the new season of walking dead is well over 60 and counting.

And for the record I agree with you in principle the VE is pretty much an "at your own risk" scenario, but the site will never try to fix it and I don't think the answer is public badmouthing of editors from writers who feel screwed.

I can just see some asshat writer who is mad his story got a 3.2 blasting the editor here because obviously it must have been their fault

 

[sr71plt]

There's nothing stopping writers from doing that now--so it's just a false argument, not wanting to encourage folks to do the decent thing for other folks. Quite curious.

 

[PennLady]

And who, exactly am I spiting?

But know what? You make a good point about supporting the writers here.

Need to look no further than the AH. A thread about amazon's purging of erotica got about 20 posts, but the new season of walking dead is well over 60 and counting.

So what? The Amazon purge is a recurring subject that has been discussed before. I don't have much to contribute beyond general disagreement with Amazon, since a) I only have two stories available right now and b) they don't push any of the edges Amazon tends to purge, like incest. And although I do think it sucks, it is within Amazon's rights to sell, or not sell, whatever they want.

You might also note, if you've read it, that we're often discussing the story and the characters and the atmosphere and how they are developed and all of that stuff, which might at least indirectly help someone write.

And for the record I agree with you in principle the VE is pretty much an "at your own risk" scenario, but the site will never try to fix it and I don't think the answer is public badmouthing of editors from writers who feel screwed.

I can just see some asshat writer who is mad his story got a 3.2 blasting the editor here because obviously it must have been their fault

So we just let the VE list/program sit there and don't comment? Why?

Also, there is a huge difference between stating "User XYZ has an editing profile but did not respond to requests," and "User XYZ sucks man! Don't ever send them anything because they never respond! They're such a douchebag!"

The first is a simple statement of fact, and no one is saying you should do the latter. It is not "shaming" to note that so-and-so has a profile but did not respond.

 

[sexnovella]

Editor

Send your work over and I will fix it.

 

[robertreams]

thank you novella. Once again a plea for help has turned into a forum for Lit oldtimers to banter back and forth and beat their chests.

 

[FlyAwayFromHere]

glad to see someone finally offered you help i was about to do the same but got pipped at the post lol. im not a VE though x