Cherries

I am reluctant to get into a grammar debate, as an unarmed man, but Dogstar, shouldn't you have started your post "I am sorry to be pedantic" ? I'm certain that Dogstar was tongue-in-cheek there, he's not generally one of the grammar-fiends, though he does correct spelling of James Kelman.

when someone picks on another individual they automatically assume a position of authority. this is mean. if people are going to pick on someone else's grammar points they should at least do it from a grammatically sound position. if you don't then you just come away looking like an idiot, and worse than that, a bully. the kellman/kelman thing had a similar context because it seemed that some chap was having a go at a novel without taking the time to read the author's name which in all probabilty was on the front cover of the novel in question in BIG letters.

Hello Dogstar, Mr Si is round here and very annoyed at what you said. He told me it was just a typo. Don't worry he is alseep and would kill me for posting this. In the cyberworld we all write very quickly and are prone to typos. So please get off that high pedestal you have put yourself on before someone knocks you off. Si read the whole book and said it had merits. He has many books. I know. A load of them fell on my head yesterday. Kelman's one was in a pile. So stop being so pedantic. People like you drive new members away. I am on getouthere as well and know a number of them like Brisp have left abc tales because of the mindless and boringly pedantic members like you. Over and Out btw if you're going to be rude, do it on the right thread.

Indeed, look at your own posting before you start on Dogstar. You would do well to heed your own advice Lothario. I am heartily sick of the rude assumptions cast around this place, where people assume a moral high ground. Now stop it. This instant.

sorry lethario, but it's dogstar with a lower-case 'd'. cheers :)

I wondered if you could create a new award - the plum. Plums are a lot more fulfilling than a cherry, a proper mouth full rather than a teasing taste. I'm sure dogstar could rustle up some decent icons in no time. Plum picked - yum, yum,

Would it be possible to have cherries for pieces and plums for sets. Plum pick sounds great!

I kind of assumed dog (lower-case 'd', you notice - must stay on the ball) had his tongue stuck firmly in his jowl...

I have to apologise for Lethario. I am very annoyed that she posted that. She gets wildly protective of me. I have whipped her for her sins. I thought dogstar and I had finished this discussion. My view is that it was a typo. doggie hates typos so must rectify that from now on. And as I stated it was my opinion and that's all. We all have different taste after all. Now lets end this Spag Man

dog doesn't hate typos. dog has nothing but universal love. *waits for spag and mykle to be victims of cruel jibes just so he can rush to their defence and prove it is so...

spag and mykle are unutterable bores

oh yeah?

well defended doggie....

*bows to thunderous applause*

All you need to do is mail us, Spag! I'll ad them now

I did mail...I am sure I did. Thanks for that emily. You're a star!

Thanks for defending me , dogstar. You are a star.

*thinks... my work HERE is done

Spag raises a thought that has been on my mind for a while now: If a writer amends their work - and I do not mean just correcting spelling errors or minor changes, but say whole paragraphs re-written - should they automatically get their cheries back? Look at the reverse scenario. Several site members have said in this forum that they like the cherry system because it helps them improve their work. If they do not receive a cherry they work hard at editing the piece until, hopefully, it is improved sufficiently to be awarded with the fruit. So, if a writer meddles with a cherried piece and, without realising it, turns it into something less worthy than it once was, should the cherry be re-instated or should the piece go for re-evaluation?

Excellent point, Colin. I'm a Dive Leader with the British Sub-Aqua Club, and that qualification stays with me for life. But what happens if, say, for medical reasons I'm no longer capable of carrying out a Dive Leader's duties (i.e. looking after less-experienced divers on a deep dive)? And supposing I don't let on and the Dive Master doesn't check? Am I putting lives at risk? Yes, of course. At my age you only need a medical every 3-5 years. So less serious, maybe, put should someone hold onto a cherry after a piece has been dramatically altered? It's a fine line, isn't it? And one that may often rely on personal likes or dislikes as to style. My feelings are that if major alterations have taken place, then the piece should be re-evaluated on its own merits. We don't need to be too Draconian about it, but it may be something for the editors to bear in mind. (As I'm sure you do).

who cares?

When people email me, I do look at the piece with a critical eye, to make sure that I still consider it cherry-worthy. I've only once had a poem that the author had taken out what was by a distance the best line, so I told them so, but it was still worthy of a cherry. Most people do actually improve the work by editing, whether that be slight or substantial, but it is a different piece and I don't think it would be right for me to automatically re-cherry if the new version wasn't up to it.

This thread has started something interesting. I agree that if it is reworked completely it should be chosen for a cherry on its merits as a new piece. Whereas, my work, was taken off ( all of it) to see if it was as bad as I thought. I only reworked one of the three pieces. The other two I took off by mistake so I think they should get the cherries back. The other one I only took off two lines and didn't add a thing so if you want to get rid of the cherry on 'A Lone Dove' then that is ok.

Suggest you email emily, as the cherry message says. It does raise the issue of whether something Mark Y-B should retain its cherry if it is edited. I think it is best that Emily deals with it - would be a bit unfair to lose it just because Tess or I wouldn't necessarily have cherried it. As it then wouldn't be a question of whether the editing had weakened it, but on whether our view of it were the same as Mark's views. And surely wrong to discourage people cherried by Mark Y-B from editing, as editing serves a useful purpose in writing. If not done to excessive Fey-mouse levels!)

Cherries are very subjective anyway, and I'm not sure they have quite as much value as people place on them. I mean I've had my fair share, but I can't help noticing that my most popular poems, on ABC and in the wider comunity, have not received cherries. I am not sure there is *any* good system for rating poetry anyway, it's like trying to measure your soul. As for Fey's editing, I have to admit I sometimes feel disapointed (amlost painfully) when she takes out a phrase that I really liked. However this may be down to a difference in writing technique, I just hate to lose anything and tend to send/post everything I write virtually unedited, I only throw things away in the first stage. I have discovered that poems mature with age, and when I come back to something I've not looked at for a while rather than needing work I like it so much that I feel afraid to touch it in case it breaks. Mark

Hey Lover Boy, Yes you Spaghetti Si. My oh my you are an egotist. Saying that my final chapter is nearly ready. Cherries..hahahahaha I lost mine to you...remember? xxxxxxx Lethario Constantine

I think that its a piece of mine that Andrew is talking about, re: taking out what he considered was the best line. We had several email conversations back and forth as to the reasons I took it out, and from him, the reasons it should stay. In the end, I still considered it should stay out, and he said he was disappointed, as it was his favourite bit, but that the cherry should stay. Andrew as an editor is a positive boon to ABC, he takes his duties very seriously, and is always willing to help via email correspondence. If you need any advice, or an honest opinion, Andrew is the man. Good on you mate.

yes, I have to agree with Liana on the point about andrew. Not wishing to sound like the teacher's pet but Andrew is an excellent addition to the editorial team at abctales - he is fair and is always willing to give an honest opinion. He has also given many writers some much needed encouragement. I think maybe people concentrate too much on the cherry issue. Only you as a writer can be happy with your pieces and no amount of cherries will change that.

Of course any individual cherry is subjective - you could find one cherried piece and one strong uncherried piece and argue for ages over which was better. The system is like Monet - close to it doesn't seem to make sense, but read 20 cherried pieces and 20 uncherried pieces at random and the system stands up. I'd be confident that the cherried stuff was better. In fact, I'd be reasonably confident about 5 random cherried and 5 random uncherried. It's a recommendation and a recognition to the writer that the editor in question thought highly of it. (It is best if accompanied by an explanation, which I do try to do - I am helped enormously in that if the writer has an email contact in their details, because otherwise it takes up quite a bit of time for me to go and find it. ) Actually Liana, I hadn't meant yours (that was my favourite line, but there were so many other strong lines in it. Others would have had other favourites) It was the line about applying makeup, wasn't it ? But thank you for the kind words. Sometimes this job can be a bit beleaguring (is that even a word? No.), but mostly it is very rewarding. Where someone really feels that they have written something and cannot understand why it hasn't been cherried, they can email me and I will have a look at it. I'm not saying that it will get a cherry on my reappraisal, but I will give the writer my thoughts on it. (I've made this offer before - nobody has ever taken me up on it. )

Sorry to be pedantic but since this site is mostly about words.... Beleaguering is a word and that’s the correct spelling. I cheat and use a spell-checker ‘cos I can’t spel for toffie.

Thank you Mykle - I took the 'e' out (don't know why, since I didn't really think it was an acceptable form of beleaguered. It just looked wrong. )

HI MYKLE. Sorry to be pedantic but since this site is mostly about words.... i ought to point out that you have no subject or subject-related verb in the opening statement of your marvellous post. i would suggest using a first-person pronoun and perhaps a conjugation from TO BE. no, no need to thank me. smooch.