Eek - my eyes!

Not attention span but interest. I freely admit I'm just not interested in poetry and wouldn't want to be obliged to read a great deal of it. My thought was that you don't really like short stories all that much and would therefore prefer that they as short as possible. I actually enjoy reading a good story, I'm sorry when I come to the end. That's the difference I had in mind. Of course if it's a rubbish story then I agree, the shorter the better.

I guess if something grabs your attention but you don't like looking at the screen for that amount of time (I know I hate it) you could always just print the thing off? Mind you, some poems of 10 lines fail to hold my attention to the end. I don't think I've ever failed to read a haiku to the end though ... I seem to remember Tom Paulin on Late Review once saying that no novel in the last X years had held his attention for more than 20 pages and Mark Lawson said that was because he was poet. The man went purpler than usual ...

Yes, i actually do like short stories.... and long ones.. and occasionally I may attempt to read a newspaper......

i think it's nonsense to suggest that liana is less interested in prose because she is a poet or that she doesn't LIKE short stories... i know that she, like myself is an avid reader of fiction long and short... i am always reading fiction but i also belong to the rarer clan of serious readers of poetry ... i think that the internet is not a medium that lends itself as well to the reading of long pieces of prose fiction ... i can -and many times have - read longer pieces on here but they do have to be very good to hold my online attention ... i am more likely to read a mediocre poem than i am to read a mediocre story ... i am equally as likely to hit back browse after a few lines of crap in either ... if people choose to ignore advice from the editors themselves about length of pieces and how that corresponds to readibility in this new medium and then cite times read as proof ... that is up to them ... i know from my own experience that times read in no way reflects real reads ... but sirat i don't think you should judge anyone else by your own narrow interests ...

Sirat, I think you are misrepresenting the point. I'm sure that you would agree that there is a big difference between five thousand and fifteen thousand words, and believe me people do submit things that are that length and over. In no way is anyone trying to prescribe the length of writing submitted to the site, just suggesting that it's worth keeping in mind the limitations of the format. We don't have a working printer, so that's out of the equation for our household at least. And, for the record, I see no need whatsoever to introduce Liana's personal preference for writing poetry into your comments. You may not have meant to, but your comment sounded both patronising and condescending. You have no idea what Liana chooses to read and how she chooses to read it, she might read War and Peace in the toilet and spend 28 hour stretches reading the complete writings of Freud in German, with Dr Seuss for light relief for all you know. With all respect, you appear to be looking for something to rail against. Liana's comment was merely a polite note to remind people, nothing more

I can't imagine it would be easy having to read every single piece that gets posted on here, and to try and give each piece the attention it deserves. It is hard to hold your attention and focus when your eyes are hurting. I really enjoy reading long pieces of writing. I have read some real classics on here; but often during reading really long pieces, I do take a break approximately halfway through, and then came back to it say ten-fifteen minutes later to finish it, when my eyes feel better. There's no way I could read a really long piece all in one go, it's just not possible. I lose concentration, no matter how astounding the piece of writing is.. it's just too hard to give it the attention it deserves.. computer screens do my head in after a bit. Turning down the brightness has helped a bit. I feel taking regular short breaks away from the computer screen helps a lot. I would advise all people to take regular breaks away from the screen as often as possible. Editors, readers and writers alike.. take care of your eyes man. You can always come back to finish something off a bit later.

I'm sorry if I personalized the debate and I agree that I have no right to make assumptions about Liana's tastes. I think what annoyed me was what I saw as the implied criticism of those who post longer pieces, and the disrespect for people's work which, rightly or wrongly, I read into her remarks. When she says: "...you cant imagine how awful it is to come across a piece that is in excess of 3000 words.... " it seemed to me that she was blaming contributors for writing something of a length that she found inconvenient. It seemed that she then scolded said writers by telling them that: "hardly anybody on the site is going to read something that is so long..." so presumably the writer was stupid for having submitted it. I would not have been upset by her saying that SHE doesn't want to read something that is "so long" (i.e. anything in excess of 3000 words) but it seemed to me arrogant in the extreme for her to speak for everyone using the site. That is what I meant by her representing her own views and opinions as FACT. Really there are two isues here. One is Liana's feelings about longer stories and her difficulties with sore eyes. The other is her duty as an editor and an awarder of cherries to deal fairly with each piece that she reads. Length in my opinion is not a relevant criterion in deciding whether or not something deserves a cherry, and if Liana finds it distasteful to read longer pieces, for whatever reason, then perhaps she should pass them, like the sci fi pieces, to a different editor. On the other hand if she feels that she is able to cope with the need to assess the longer pieces fairly then all well and good. What I don't think she should do is imply that her problems are the fault of we inconsiderate writers for submitting pieces that are too long.

Dont even BEGIN to go down the road that I do not deal fairly with each piece I read. Your post is now certainly misrepresenting what I said. Whether I cherry a piece or not has absolutely NOTHING to do with how long it is - every single piece that comes on this site is read without bias by either myself or another editor - why do you insinuate that I did? I said in my original post that there is no way that I wish to discourage people from uploading to this site, and yet you again continue to insinuate that that is what I really mean. I do not. What I said, has been said before Sirat, by both Andrew Pack and Emily Dubberly - Its not new, but its still relevant, which is why I brought it up again. Nowhere in my post did i say that it was a FACT (as you yell) that people will not read longer pieces. I said "hardly anyone" (You actually quote me correctly at one point above, but then again misrepresent me to illustrate your perceived argument.) I feel your anger has more to do with my flippant and tongue in cheek remark about sci-fi than anything else. Does it not? Now if you wish to take me to task for things I actually said, fair enough. With all due respect Sirat, please do NOT twist my words to inflame people, when that was in no way the original intention of my post.

what thoroughly gets my goat about the way this thread has turned out ... and other threads that whinge about cherries or the filter or techie stuff or whatever ... is that people seem to forget they are getting all this for free ... these editors work voluntarily! how can you sit there sirat and criticise as though your service agreement contract with british gas or the dustbin men hasn't been honoured????

Oh dear, far be it for me to fan these flames, which i have no interest in doing, though it does look like an interesting debate. I am sure, however, that when i first became a contributor on this site, one of the first things i read was that they preferred the pieces to be 3000 words or less. I do bear this in mind, though at this time, despite the fact i do have pieces longer, nothing i have submitted is over this length. If i do wish to do so i will split it and send it in two or more parts, and probably try to work out a decent cliff-hanger just to keep whatever little interest may be shown in it. Also, i must add, for the record, that my poetry pieces do tend to be read more than my short stories. I am quite dismissive of poetry, even my own, and see little relevance in it a lot of the time, being that most of it tends to be of a personal nature. That doesn't stop me from working on it and using it in a way that may benefit my writing at some future date. I guess what i am saying is that all writing is relevant to someone, and to fan at least one flame, good sci-fi (and i do like a lot of sci-fi) has pushed science fact !! But this format does have limitations which they advise you of on signing up. Anyway thats my ha'pennies worth !

Thank you roybar, I'm pretty sure that when you join there's a screen of faq's that remind you about the length of pieces. You are doing what I was suggesting, just splitting long pieces up, not NOT WRITING AND SUBMITTING long pieces. That's all that was being suggested, nothing more, nothing less.

I am just having a look round this site. It would seem that if the editors are voluntary as Fish says above then it would be arrogant and ungrateful to complain about their methods, be pernickerty about their advice and twist their words to suit your own pompous position. I have no idea who any of you are but I can say this - a person who posts things like Sirat above has makes sure that she/he comes across as unpleasant and picky. As a newcomer what that means to me is I will not bother to look up his/her work whatever the length of it might be. Quite the reverse. Don't suppose I have any business having an opinion on this but that never stops me.

Trixi, your opinions are as valid as the next, more so perhaps if it raises the spectre of new members being put off by arrogant posts. Don’t be swayed by Sirat’s words on this thread though, his work is very good and I don’t even like sci-fi. Put it down to artistic temperament and please judge his work as a writer of prose rather than a poster of threads. Stick around, it gets quite heated at times though usually only degenerates into sleaze when the trolls come a trolling…. is that the sound of heavy feet I hear ……?

Strangely enough I only have one sci fi piece on this site out of a total of eighteen pieces, although it's true that it was what I wrote most of when I was younger. I find it ironic that I am being accused of arrogance as it was the arrogance that I perceived in Liana's post that motivated me to reply. When you really analyse the substance of our two "positions" there isn't very much there. Again (I stress) rightly or wrongly I perceived Liana as adopting the ex cathedra position of someone who "knows better" telling us that we were foolish little people for posting things that almost nobody was going to read. If she had simply said politely that she would prefer longer pieces broken up then I wouldn't have responded. I think it was the tone of the post and what (again) I perceived as a dismissive attitude towards longer stories that got me going, and I suppose that's something over which neither of us has very much control. It's probably something to do with our personalities (a bit similar, do I hear you cry?).

Sirat, 'eek - my eyes!' is a light hearted joke based on a mutal level of understanding, not a dig or slight or oppressive statement. Liana, me, and others spent our entire weekend reading pieces on ABC, we're talking at least 24 hours spent reading, probably a lot more. We do this becasue we believe in what this site stands for, we believe in how great it is, we believe in how important it is in people's lives. We were talking about how it cuts into the time we have to write stuff ourselves. As fish says, we're volunteers, we don't get paid, we do it because we want to. We don't gain anything concrete from it, we just get to read some great stuff and get to feel involved in the excitement of encouraging people to communicate with each other and to share their stories and poems. It's offensive to feel that some people don't share the idea that we're all in this together, and doubt our motives as editors. And just to point out AGAIN, there's a world of difference between 5000 and 15000 or 20000 words, anything that length can always be subdivided, which is ALL that was being said.

Good to know you're catching up. Does that mean i may still get a cherry ?? :-)

they are all read. every last one of them, regardless. all cherrys are out... didnt you get one chick? :o)

The work that Liana, Mark, Tess , formerly Andrew and now Hox are all putting in is way beyond the call of duty. They are all voluntary and I am deeply grateful to them for the help and assistance they give. Without them, there would be no ABCtales. Sirat - I accept that longer pieces can be put on here. That was a deliberate decision by us when we started. We don't want to chop anyone's ability to write at an arbitary length. However, it is also true that there are many times that I don't get to the end of al long piece. It has to be really really good to hold my attention on a computer screen. It may be my age or my proclivities but short stuff works on ABCtales. I have no doubt about it. Write as long as you like - so long as it's not a whole novel! - but accept the advice from those who live and breathe here that 3,000 words is about top whack for most people to read on the net. And say a BIG BIG thankyou to our tireless Editors! Pip pip

Sheesh, what's the big deal? If it's really long, split it into two parts, and then if people like it they'll read the second part anyway. I agree that longer pieces would be irritating for an editor who has to stare at a screen for so long. I was doing maths coursework for hours and hours on my computer the other night, and by the end of it my eyeballs felt like they were too big for my skull. I don't think Liana's out of line or arrogant at all. There's nothing wrong with making things easier to digest. Sirat, you're blowing this way out of proportion. :s -pen

Odd how Tricksy "just having a look round this site" chose this thread to comment upon and no other. Can't work out if Chooselife is being disingenuous or whether he cannot see the trolls for the wooden posts. *fires up troll detector software ... enter 213.249.157.1 ... ooh, I say!* Anyway, this has been mentioned in the forum by editors in the past. Since it still occurs then it should be obvious that a post in the forum is not going to cure the problem. New writers often discover the forum after they have submitted and then only if someone emails them. Other writers probably never even check the forum. Seems to me the sensible solution would be for an editor, when faced with a book sized submission to read, sends a polite pro-forma email to the writer asking them to resubmit in posts not exceeding x number of words. Failing that, flag it up on the sign up page. It may well be on the FAQ page Mark, but time has shown that most people do not read this kind of stuff nor do they check out the site before they submit.

Right then, I'll make this short then, shall I? (9 words)

how about a cherry for this ? (6 words)

sarky gits.

.

I don't want to appear ungrateful for the hard work you're doing as an editor, Liana, but you are primarily a poet, and it's highly unusual for a poem in these pages to run to more than a few hundred words. But a good short story, with decent characterization and dialogue and description and plot development and all the things that ought to be there can easily exceed three thousand words. I think if I remember rightly I have had three of my stories in the story of the day slot over the years and I have just checked and all three of them were well over three thousand words, one of them slightly over five thousand. I understand that you're getting blown away by having too many things to read in a short space of time but I don't think you should try to make us feel guilty or discourage people from writing the longer pieces. At least in my opinion the really memorable pieces are not often the very short ones.

But Sirat, it's about what people can really be expected to be able to sit and read. Three thousand is a comfortable read when sat at a computer screen. Liana, or me for that matter, isn't suggesting that nothing longer than three thousand should exist on site, or in the world. Much longer and people begin to lose interest, which is the risk that the writer takes. Believe me though, when someone posts something that is maybe fifteen, twenty thousand words long, unless is it is a f***ing masterpiece, it's not going to get read in full. I believe that Liana is suggesting that people keep in mind the limitations of the format of the site and the manner in which people use it. If something can be comfortably subdivided into different sections, then it would be better to be subdivided. If it is, it'll get read more, and read properly.

Yes, thank you Mark. Thats it exactly. Wouldnt dream of discouraging anyone from uploading or writing whatever they wish, just pointing out that stuff which is over 5000 words is unlikely to get read. Sorry if you dont agree, but its a fact. On paper, its a different matter - of course my bookshelves are stuffed with books much longer than 5000 words!!!! The monitor though, doesnt lend itself to such things well. And the fact that I am primarily a poet has little to do with it. Poetry may be the thing that I write, but isnt all I read by any stretch of the imagination.

I was the one that started the Immaculata thread. It was one of the first things I read when I discovered this site. I thought that was a great story and I never even realized how long it was. I agree with Sirat. I don't think you even notice the length of a story unless there's something else wrong with it. I think what Liana is really saying is that she doesn't like reading off the screen. I am a science student and use Web resources and electronic files a lot and I think the opposite might be true for me, I prefer the screen to printed material. In front of a computer screen is where I feel at home. I like to take a book to bed with me though.

JUST a book? Good to see you back Bryan, you haven't been around for ages.

Nope.. sorry. Completely disagree. Before I was obliged to read every single word of something, if I clicked on it, and the slider at the side was miniscule, it would have to be damn good to hold my attention... and thats not just applicable to me, but to many people I discussed this with.. the computer screen vs. paper really does make a difference, as bryan says, he takes a book to bed.. ...and bryan, what I am really saying, is what i really said. nothing more. Sirat...the more i think about it, the more annoyed I am that you use the fact that I write poetry to measure my attention span!!