Leave a comment

Rhysling Anthology proofing fibitz July 24 2013, 17:42:28 UTC
The system in place for the Rhysling Anthology has been more problematic in the past. At my specific urging, the custom of sending the .pdf to all contributors to proof was instituted several years ago and has greatly reduced the number of errors. My poems have also previously been published with introduced errors, including the one that won the Rhysling ( ... )

Reply

Re: Rhysling Anthology proofing alexandraerin July 24 2013, 19:46:43 UTC
I promise, no one was sitting here thinking that someone had decided, "You know what would be awesome? ERRORS. Errors and arbitrarily depriving people of the opportunity to fix them." before you came along to enlighten us as to the process that created this end result.

Explaining the mistakes that led to the situation being deplored is nice, but explaining doesn't excuse. The words "I'm" and "sorry" should be somewhere in this post and I'm not seeing them.

The errors are regrettable, you say? How marvelously passive! Who regrets them? Not you specifically, it doesn't seem. But they are regrettable, so we should fee free to regret them quietly at our leisure?

Also, "as [I/he] thought" suggests that things actually happened in accordance with thought. That's why people say "Just as I thought!" when something they thought turns out to be true. It seems to me like what you're trying to say is that you thought the proof was sent out to contributors when it wasn't, and David Kopaska-Merkel thought he'd gotten all the contributors, when ( ... )

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

Re: Rhysling Anthology proofing fibitz July 25 2013, 21:27:41 UTC
SFPA is made up of volunteers, including Robert Frazier, the main person responsible each year for Rhysling Anthology design and layout. I'm speaking as one of the volunteers involved in the production of the Rhysling Anthology, to defuse the uninformed speculations about the Rhysling process by explaining exactly what that process was.

Everyone involved with the Rhysling Anthology, including myself, is sorry that errors occurred. These errors were primarily due to unforeseeable events (John Mannone's illness and handing over the layout to a second person [me] in mid-production) rather than incompetence. Revising the process used for nominating will prevent or mitigate the impact of such events on future Rhysling Anthologies.

Again, SFPA would love to have more volunteers who think the status quo can be improved upon and more participating members.

Reply

Re: Rhysling Anthology proofing samhenderson July 25 2013, 22:54:30 UTC
I do not believe the speculations about the Rhysling process have been "uninformed."

Reply

Re: Rhysling Anthology proofing popelizbet July 26 2013, 15:43:05 UTC
I have given myself some time before responding to this comment in order that I may do so in the most productive manner possible.

1.) I second everything alexandraerin said, and I find it curious that you ignore her valid points. Further, although you may not realize it, ignoring alexandraerin is a bad move professionally. Her fandom is enormous and quite likely to appreciate speculative poetry. If SFPA actually wants to broaden its influence, not engaging with creators who have considerable power to benefit your organization if they so choose is simply a bad idea ( ... )

Reply

Re: Rhysling Anthology proofing popelizbet July 26 2013, 15:43:28 UTC
8.) You admit that you made the final corrections, but you do not take responsibility for the errors. That's telling.

9.) David Kopaska-Merkel has actually apologized for his role in these errors. You have not. Again, telling. Further, I agree with cafenowhere that your tone is not at all in line with David's tone in addressing this issue publically and privately, and as a prominent SFPA volunteer, this is something you might wish to consider.

10.) Again, not all poets were contacted; at least one was omitted. It is only at this point that you state that "SFPA does take these errors seriously." This is directly contradicted by your downplaying of the errors as "only five poems" earlier in your comment.

11.) You may be right about some of the errors cropping up because of nominators being required to give the text of the poem. However, I know for a fact that was not the case with my poem, because there was an error in the published version with New Myths that I only noticed when reviewing the poem after hearing about the nomination. I ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up