Repeating Myself, with added eyerolling

[neadods]

There are now apparently six comms dedicated to critiquing the nominees for the Children of Time awards, so many run by sock puppets that the latest stakes its claim to fame specifically as the non-sock comm. (Why does CoT continue to soak up this nonsense? It's not like there are multiple comms SMOFing about calufrax recs.)


I'm going to take this opportunity to repeat myself: by openly posting reviews under my name, I have gotten work. Semi-professional work. (Reviewing the Evidence, I Love a Mystery Newsletter) Paying work. (Once Written, Firefox News) Even the stuff that doesn't pay in cash or goods (Unreality SF) is adding to my portfolio so I can get more work (and things are being negotiated for future lines).

Four years of negative reviews in Reviewing the Evidence, and I have yet to be spit on or run out of (or even shunned at) Malice Domestic or Bouchercon. It hasn't been six days since I looked a professional author right in the eyes and explained why I gave her next-to-latest book a partially negative review. Mary Stanton was amazingly cool about it. We had a long conversation about those points in her series and her plans.


So frankly y'all, I have LESS than no sympathy for anyone who thinks that they "have" to hide their identity to "honestly" give an opinion.

Comments

[wendymr.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: I am a reviewer for cot_reviews.

Let me say, first of all, that I have no problem with anyone setting up a comm or LJ to review fics nominated for the awards. The more fics get reviewed, the better. But this:

the latest stakes its claim to fame specifically as the non-sock comm.

That astounded me, honestly. Yes, there are sock comms around, but cot_reviews, mentioned by name in the post advertising the new comm, is definitely not a sock. The mod and all reviewers post under their usual LJ nicks and the author of each review is identified.

I suspect it was just sloppy writing on the part of the mod of the new comm, but it did appear that several review comms were being included in that and other criticisms - such as needing to agree with the mod on what makes good fic. That's certainly not the case at cot_reviews, and it wasn't the case at Tossed either from what I saw. Disagree with the way existing review comms do things, by all means, but at least be clear on how each operates!

[neadods.livejournal.com]

but [info]cot_reviews, mentioned by name in the post advertising the new comm, is definitely not a sock.

I know. And I know that y'all have the right to *not* review something that you couldn't honestly cheer about, which is terribly useful. ILMN and OW both had "good review only" policies, and there were times when I couldn't just pretend I hadn't received *any* of the books I was supposed to be reviewing!