Hi Andrew,

I saw this post and was curious so I read the review in question. I was surprised because the review did not seem insulting to me (compared to some that I have received, anyway.)

I certainly don't want to unintentionally insult someone when I write reviews in the future, and I suspect I have been guilty of breaches of etiquette too, so would you mind elaborating on what parts of the review you thought were insulting, and why you thought AnnaB was rewriting your work in her own idiom? Thanks.

No? Oh, balls. Why didn't someone tell me that three years ago?

I don't actually think it's poor etiquette at all (not that I'm up on such things. I only tend to socialise with aristocrats, and they all behave appallingly. That's probably why I fit in so well). I have long thought that re-writing the work of others improves my objectivity towards my own writing. But I only bother if there is the spark in the original work that I admire, so it is always a compliment of sorts.

If we all reviewed by rewriting the work instead of offering comments and scores, I think we would all be better writers. It's a challenge: 'this is okay, I guess, but it could be better if...' we say, but surely to prove the point we should then apply the 'if'. If the 'if' doesn't work even for the person who suggests it might, it's probably because that person is talking shite and shouldn't be anywhere near a writers' website.

Rambling there a tad, but good writing is all about rewriting in the end and what good is a 'review' anyway?

But I'll bow out there before anyone who spells his name with CAPITAL letters leaps in and explains all about politeness or somesuch.

I don't know any aristocrats, but I have the same outlook about rewriting. This thread piqued my interest because when I first came on the site, I actually did rewrite passages in a few of my reviews. By the reaction, not positive, I concluded that this was somehow not done.

Oddly enough, my reason for doing it was the admonition to be "constructive." Rather than say, "I read the first three paragraphs four times. It didn't help. My eyes glazed over each time and I'm near to tears at the thought that I will have to read thousands more words that will be equally incomprehensible," I thought it might be more helpful to make a positive contribution. In one instance, it was a "wordsmithing" issue - the content was not even the question, because the style was so in the way that I could hardly make sense of who was who and what was what. (It was a fantasy story)

I spent a long time with the piece, trying to be helpful. I had given the writer really low numbers, and felt bad about that, and wanted to do something "for" them to make up for giving such a negative rating.

I found the process of analyzing why the language wasn't working, and revising the words so that the meaning was accessible, to be an instructive task for me. Fortunately, I got something out of it even if the writer didn't.

I've also had reviewers basically suggest changes that would materially alter the story itself. I didn't consider this insulting because they had clearly put a great deal of thought into what they wrote. Actually, I rather took it as a compliment that they bothered. It was also a chance to ask myself again, "What am I trying to say?" and "Have I chosen the best way to say it?" Even if, after due consideration, I rejected the suggestions, I felt clearer about my choices regarding the work, having tested them against alternatives.