[ SECRET POST #2791 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2791 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #399.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: I was going to ask this, myself.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

there are lots of people who claim they'll ~never read an un-beta'd fic~ because

i'm not sure actually. un-beta'd fic isn't good enough for them? supposedly the quality of the writing is bound to be worse or something? but anyways, people like that are out there

Re: I was going to ask this, myself.

[(Anonymous)]

A lot a writers do not specify either way, so I am not sure how serious such readers can be?

Sure, when I see an unbeta'd warning, a red flag goes off in my mind, but a few paragraphs are usually sufficient to determine if this is a problem. Quite often, it isn't, unless the writer just feels that the rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation do not apply to their masterpiece. No biggie, this is what the back button is for! :D

Personally I am very unforgiving of spelling mistakes, OOC characters or huge plot sinkholes etc. (which can happen far too easily when no friend has a chance to point out the problem tactfully), but I never prejudge based on an 'unbetaed' warning since most of the best authors I know do not use a beta, so.

Re: I was going to ask this, myself.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

unless the writer just feels that the rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation do not apply to their masterpiece.

I find the ones who do warn that their work is unbeta'd know their spelling and grammar is not perfect and the warning is partly about that.

Re: I was going to ask this, myself.

[nyxelestia]

Well, I know that - hell, I used to be like that, depending on fandom. But again, not using a beta is more common than using a beta, so I'm not sure why it's a secret.

Re: I was going to ask this, myself.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't read fic that proclaims its lack of a beta. Is the quality *bound* to be worse? No. But the likelihood of it being worse are, in my experienced, increased without a beta, and increased even more when the person feels the need to mention their lack of beta in tags or notes or whatever. While there's all sorts of reasons for doing so, it feels like at least half the times I tried such fic, "un-beta-ed" meant "I know this is full of errors, but I don't really care."

And with all the great fic out there that has gotten a second set of eyes before publication, I just don't feel like spinning that particular roulette. I only get to maybe 2 or 3 fics a week. I do what I can to increase my chances of finding really good stuff.

But honestly, I don't get why people mention it in the first place. If you didn't use a beta and don't need one, no one will notice or care. If you didn't use one and DO need it, we'll know anyway.