I know that what you're saying is the right thing to hear for most of the people reading it.
But. You're falling into the fallacy of "good", as if there is one way for a story to be "good", everyone will recognize it, and the solution is always to be "better". This is an implicit enforcement of cultural norms; by treating them as objective reality, it sidelines anything that challenges them, and encourages stories that fit an extant mold for which there is a pre-existing sense of good.
I know this doesn't matter to most newbies; most of the time editors will reject a story 'cause it's boring or incoherent or something -- large flaws that are (more or less) cross-culturally agreed on.
But there is also editorial taste and (often ignored) editorial blinders. Being silent about that is especially discouraging to people from minority/oppressed groups, people whose voice is often inherently not considered valid in the field. We keep being told we're inferior when sometimes? We're just different.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-07 11:05 pm (UTC)But.
You're falling into the fallacy of "good", as if there is one way for a story to be "good", everyone will recognize it, and the solution is always to be "better". This is an implicit enforcement of cultural norms; by treating them as objective reality, it sidelines anything that challenges them, and encourages stories that fit an extant mold for which there is a pre-existing sense of good.
I know this doesn't matter to most newbies; most of the time editors will reject a story 'cause it's boring or incoherent or something -- large flaws that are (more or less) cross-culturally agreed on.
But there is also editorial taste and (often ignored) editorial blinders. Being silent about that is especially discouraging to people from minority/oppressed groups, people whose voice is often inherently not considered valid in the field. We keep being told we're inferior when sometimes? We're just different.
I point you to this rejection letter and this speech as challenging the notion of a single objective "better".