Forum

The NewsBiscuit Community

Sign up or log in - lost password?

Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten

Is it what is written or who writes it?


(47 posts) (16 voices)
  • Started 1 year ago by Ironduke
  • Latest reply from saltire

Tags:

  • Edita
  • editamus
  • Editatis
  • Editum
  • editunt
  • Editus
  • I think she's the stalker
  • Ii'm an iidiiot
  • It's 'Qoxiivi' I think you'll find
  • No.
  • Physician edit thyself.
  • Qoxiivii + i Geddit?
  • Try all new formula Qoxiivii
  • why 'i' man?
12Next »
  1. Ironduke

    offline
    Member

    One point to make clear from the off...I haven't written anything of FP length for months.

    I looked on the writers page yesterday and read something from a famous name that was pretty good, but not very polished and not exceptional (it was loose, had clear repetition - 'Mr Clark said' was repeated three times in three short paragraphs- and a weak punchline- would have benefitted from editing. I wondered how it would be treated. I note many contributors have left grateful messages for the editing they have received.

    This piece was immediately plain cut-and-pasted to the FP. No editing whatsoever of the entire piece.

    Now either it was genuinely thought to be exceptional writing, no edit required...or someone saw the author's name and just slapped it straight up, copy and paste.

    And before the 'sour grapes' comments hurtle in...I've not written anything of FP length, in fact only done comments on threads and the odd oneliner or decidedly shakey short piece for months. And I'm not gettign at any individual...the piece had much merit, in my humble opinion; but I do wonder whether all posts get the same chance or whether there is a preference for the famous names on here.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  2. rikkor

    offline
    Member

    J'aime plus le mot "editting" avec deux tays.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  3. Qoxiivi

    offline
    Member

    This is indeed an issue, I agree. In the editors' defence, a lot of it is to do with certain posters having earned their 'permission' to be found funny and, therefore, understandably, the editors are drawn straight to the posters who are known for producing funny, polished and publishable content. That's only the case, however, IMO, if they don't have time to read everything.

    There have been a couple of instances where I’ve spotted mistakes or untidy writing in stuff that’s made it immediately and unedited onto the FP whereas some of my articles have been heavily edited in a way I don’t agree with or feel was necessary. Of course, I’m grateful that they were picked up to begin with, but then, it’s a two way thing; sure, I enjoy writing satire and it’s nice to see it ‘published’, but then again we are providing free content for their site.

    There is no doubt at all, though, that it’s just as much about who submits something as it is about a piece’s own intrinsic quality. Any given creative contribution has a better chance of getting published if attached to a respected poster’s moniker than if submitted by an unfamiliar name.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  4. Ironduke

    offline
    Member

    Merci beaucoup Rikkor...votre tag est tres amusant aussi.

    Thank you Qox...I think a few NIBs have appeared a wee while after they were written, and I wonder if editors have felt the material getting a little thin and gone hunting back a little; then along comes a famous name and they pounce on it with a cut and paste without really critiqueing it.

    Would be a nice interpretation...

    Posted 1 year ago #
  5. Vertically Challenged Giant

    offline
    Member

    ID, while I agree with you about the repetition in the last 3 paragraphs being left in, which I thought could have been tidied up (although hadn't actually noticed until you pointed it out), I really don't think there is a bias on the site.

    The rule seems to me to be that to make FP a story has to be either topical and funny, or non-topical and VERY funny. The topical stuff gets preference, and the most successful writers do topical very well, which is why they get the FPs. Not being established doesn't count against you, as wayland is busy proving with (i think) 6 FPs this month, despite only having been here a month.

    I think the most important thing to remember is that we are free to contribute to the site, which, (I can only speak for myself here but assume others feel the same), we enjoy doing because we like making people laugh, because of the time and effort that those editing the site put in for no personal gain.

    I have been drinking though, so this might not make as much sense as I hoped it would.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  6. Quaz

    offline
    Member

    "a lot of it is to do with certain posters having earned their 'permission' to be found funny and, therefore, understandably, the editors are drawn straight to the posters who are known for producing funny, polished and publishable content".

    Hmm, two separate issues here. Editors may possibly be drawn to subs by those who have a good track record, but on the FP names are not a big draw for readers here. Look at any front page, and the author is in small print at the bottom, you really have to look for it. Often I only realise who wrote a FP if I read the original or by the subsequent subs about it.

    Enjoy writing it, be happy if people vote or comment on it, forget the 'FP' competition. No one is paying you for it.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  7. Golgo13

    offline
    Member

    ...

    Posted 1 year ago #
  8. Qoxiivi

    offline
    Member

    Quaz; I was referring to posters having the editors' permission to be found funny - not readers. I very much doubt the readers recognise the monikers of submitting writers.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  9. Vertically Challenged Giant

    offline
    Member

    Good point well made golgo, I agree.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  10. Qoxiivi

    offline
    Member

    Also, I might add, I pretty much see this as almost necessarily true. People’s experiences are informed by their expectations. People will find the same joke funnier when told by someone they’re expecting to find funny (and are receptive to finding funny) than when told by someone they dislike or are indifferent too. It’s basically the placebo effect.

    Surely you must all have experienced this first-hand in social groups. New people (or those of a lower status) will, amongst other things, find it harder to make the others laugh than will someone of a higher status/reputation to whom the other group members are comfortable ‘submitting’.

    This board is biased, but then, this is only natural. Respect has to be earned and with it comes acceptance, praise and all other benefits. Great writing will be noticed on here, but for someone new it can take persistence. Wayland, of course, is an excellent, tight and schooled writer who got the style right from the start and hit the ground running. Actually, that makes a big difference too; if your first piece is not that great, it’ll be harder to win people over from there. Stands to reason and is one of the most understood rules of stand-up; hit ‘em with your best joke first.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  11. bonjonelson

    offline
    Member

    I don't have to worry about my stuff - it never makes the FP :)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  12. Oxbridge

    offline
    Member

    There's no system. It depends on who's editing on the day and what he (for it is always a he, I think) finds funny and wants to edit - and/or has time to edit. Nobody has earned the right to go on unedited, my good self included, though it has happened sometimes.

    I actually thought the Ken Clarke one was one of Dark Bill's weaker ones and was a bit surprised it made it, whereas the delay in Ludo's home exorcism kit making FP was even more surprising. But that's just my opinion, which isn't more valid than anyone else's. Except Saltire, obviously.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  13. waylandsmithy

    offline
    Member

    I'll start by saying that I'm amazed to have got some FPs, and deeply grateful for the kind comments I've had. This is a unique site, and should be treasured.

    Things I've learned:

    - If something you write bombs, learn from it, don't take it personally. That's not a pointed comment: I've written a couple of things that I was really pleased with, that went nowhere. I got over it, and wrote something else.

    - Spend some time thinking about an idea before writing it.

    - Thesauruses are awesome.

    - Do some research to add credibility. You can appear to be knowledgeable about subjects you barely comprehend with the help of Google. People can tell if you're winging it.

    - Poor grammar and spelling detracts from gud ideers.

    - The site may or may not have a slight political bias. So has everything. Funny normally wins through.

    - I still think I was right about my Wombles story.

    - Write about things that bug you. Those subs just flow.

    - I'd really appreciate more constructive criticism, it's useful. It's more useful than zero feedback. But I avoid leaving negative feedback myself. No idea if there's an answer to that.

    - Never try and compete with Ludicity. He will destroy you.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  14. Dick Everyman

    offline
    Member

    Good points Waylandsmithy. I've been FP'd twice (out of over 30 submissions) for stuff I thought wasn't as strong as previous entries. It's a community site so we are hopefully making each other laugh along the way and learning from each other. Case of moving on when stuff doesn't work and honing a craft.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  15. waylandsmithy

    offline
    Member

    Dick,

    2 out of 30 subs is a far higher hit rate than me! I keep promising myself I'll submit less stuff. But it's as moreish as crack.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  16. Vertically Challenged Giant

    offline
    Member

    Wayland, don't start writing less, unless you start running out of inspiration, there is no such thing as too many good subs.

    I agree that more constructive criticism would be helpful, I try to say if there's something I think is good but with a weak punchline for example. But I don't feel especially qualified to be telling others where they are going wrong.

    I also know that tumbleweed can be disheartening and that it's nice to know people like your stuff, so if I like something I try to make a point of saying so.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  17. waylandsmithy

    offline
    Member

    That's the snag: there's no 'funny' qualifications. But I'd love it if people just went with their gut feeling on what's funny: everyone's an expert on what they find funny.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  18. Vertically Challenged Giant

    offline
    Member

    That's the trouble, it's all a matter of taste. That might be why people are reluctant to leave what they might feel is constructive criticism, because what would make something funnier to one person would also make it less funny to somebody else.

    Apparently a lot of people find james corden funny. I don't, but if he's making other people laugh then fair play to the guy.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  19. Quaz

    offline
    Member

    When I wrote music reviews back in the day, I made it a point to only review bands I thought were good. Same went for the demo tape reviews. If I didn't like it them it might just be my bias, but if I did them maybe I could offer constructive crit. Life's too short to spend slagging people off. And who wants to read reviews of bad bands? You want to know what's good.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  20. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    I hear that you can get a PhD in Funny Studies on line, only two thousand quid. I failed the entry requirements (i.e. two thousand quid).

    Posted 1 year ago #
  21. Vertically Challenged Giant

    offline
    Member

    Al, that's probably true. You can probably even do a degree in funny studies at a real, genuine third rate university. For just £27k of tuition fees. Plus beer money.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  22. JohnA

    offline
    Member

    I try to make constructive criticism, to make a nearly complete funny FP candidate into a better one. If I laughed I say so. If I think something is a little weak then I say so.

    Its very hit and miss because some (a few) can't take any sort of criticism. Ego plays a big part.

    The best Newsbiscuit FP candidates are usually surreal rather than satirical. The Hornby railways one on the front page is a case in point.

    Satire requires a lot of background reading or research, and its more difficult to sustain. That's why I admire Jon Stewart's Daily Show so much. Much of the satirical material on FB comes across as too forced (and I include some of my own efforts in that description)

    Sometimes its better if people say "That didn't work because..." rather than just ignoring it. Or giving them three stars and saying why it didn't quite hit the mark.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  23. rikkor

    offline
    Member

    JohnA, loved the post. It's like attending an online master course in Assholeishness.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  24. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    Assholeishness the Pope?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  25. waylandsmithy

    offline
    Member

    Maybe we could use the avatars to indicate if we want critical feedback? A monkey with his hands clasped over his ears if you don't? Or a prone monkey with his legs apart, ready to have his plums stamped on if you do?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  26. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    That was PluckyMunky

    Posted 1 year ago #
  27. rikkor

    offline
    Member

    Al, I think you are thinking of Ahasuerus. Quelle drollerie about Plucky!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  28. Oxbridge

    offline
    Member

    Another point, from today's FP. I put that up a year ago and thought it was a strong contender but it didn't make it. I recycled it, not very heavily rewritten and there it is. Always worth another go.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  29. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    Xerxes, surely, Rik?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  30. SingingHinny

    offline
    Member

    Spotting every good sub on this site is tough I think, and a bit like walking down the street with a friend who nudges you and says, "Did you see the arse on her?!" but you missed it because you were too busy looking at a pair of boobs.

    It must be the same for the editor, so when an established name subs something, they go straight for it because it is easier and quicker. The writers aren't the only ones doing this for free (honestly, how many times do you think people click on ads from this site? That's where the money comes from). But to be fair it is usually good. And we also can't say that they don't notice newcomers such as VCG and Waylandsmithy.

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.