You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts • Hacker News Board

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#81

Post by dorksquad » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 1:50 PM UTC

peddling-brink wrote: post #75

dorksquad wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It felt too long" was right. The solution was not to make the story shorter. The solution was to look at the parts that felt long, and believe that feedback. smells like LLM

> Smells like LLM Smells like not adding value to the discussion.

LLM writing is not adding value to the discussion.

The slightly inflated rhetoric whose tells are false contrast and unnecessary parallelism let me know that a human did not spend time writing that comment. Why should humans spend time reading it?

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#82

Post by shimman » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 1:55 PM UTC

falcor84 wrote: post #66

shimman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh course it's a high bar! Why should anyone care about this work outside of the time of their release? It's modern culture but it ain't gonna be passed down anytime soon.

If the bar is that people will continue reading their books in 200 years, than which fiction writers of the last few decades would go into your list of "good"?

I don't know because you're asking me something that is impossible for a human that only lives to ~80 years.

Try asking better questions if you want better responses.

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#83

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 2:42 PM UTC

shimman wrote: post #82

falcor84 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the bar is that people will continue reading their books in 200 years, than which fiction writers of the last few decades would go into your list of "good"?

I don't know because you're asking me something that is impossible for a human that only lives to ~80 years. Try asking better questions if you want better responses.

Take your best guess, obviously. The question is fine.

You're already confidently predicting a negative future for Ender's Game, so you're clearly not adverse to predictions.

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#84

Post by GuinansEyebrows » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 2:53 PM UTC

balamatom wrote: post #55

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a lot of that happened before his views were more widely known. much like jk rowling. a lot of people have written both best-selling authors off as bigots; this is just a matter of fact. they may be financially comfortable but their standings have been irreparably harmed by their own statements.

Yes, and that's a completely different point from the one you were making. Your claim that they became massively popular before they revealed themselves to be bigots, contradicts your claim about their > lack of compassion, imagination, openness and curiosity required to create compelling fiction or writing advice that resonates with people who aren't bigots. You are doing the cause a disservice. Think better.

we can learn new things about people that change the way we feel about them and the work they produce. nothing is truly static.

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#85

Post by shantnutiwari » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:10 PM UTC

some years ago when I too sent out short stories: For one story, one editor loved the setting and opening scene, but hated the pacing.

The other loved the pacing, hated the opening scene! These were the editors at the top selling magazines at the time.

Needless to say, I didnt follow their advice. After some time, when no editor was found, I self pubbed the story in a collection.

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#86

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 3:38 PM UTC

mwigdahl wrote: post #2

I liked Zvi Mowshowitz' summary of this: If someone tells you what's wrong, listen to them. If they tell you how to fix it, ignore them.

[deleted]

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#87

Post by balamatom » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #84

balamatom wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and that's a completely different point from the one you were making. Your claim that they became massively popular before they revealed themselves to be bigots, contradicts your claim about their > lack of compassion, imagination, openness and curiosity required to create compelling fiction or writing advice that resonates with people who aren't bigots. You are doing the cause a disservice. Think better.

we can learn new things about people that change the way we feel about them and the work they produce. nothing is truly static.

[flagged]

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#88

Post by cxr » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

asdfman123 wrote: post #52

Der_Einzige wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s exactly the opposite. Most concerns aren’t valid (even if and especially if they think it is) and most ideas for fixing things aren’t even contemplated let alone attempted.

What's an example of a concern that you don't think is valid?

That you have to lock down the ability to edit the docs in your project wiki because otherwise anyone would be able to edit the wiki.

That we have to lock down installation of unsigned extensions in Firefox on Linux because spyware/nagware in the form of add-ons that re-install themselves have been observed in the wild (on Windows) and caused problems.

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#89

Post by alecbz » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 5:28 PM UTC

cxr wrote: post #88

asdfman123 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's an example of a concern that you don't think is valid?

That you have to lock down the ability to edit the docs in your project wiki because otherwise anyone would be able to edit the wiki. That we have to lock down installation of unsigned extensions in Firefox on Linux because spyware/nagware in the form of add-ons that re-install themselves have been observed in the wild (on Windows) and caused problems.

Those sound like proposed solutions, not the underlying concerns. Motivating concerns here might be things like "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info", "people will unknowingly install spyware".

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#90

Post by cxr » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 5:36 PM UTC

alecbz wrote: post #89

cxr wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you have to lock down the ability to edit the docs in your project wiki because otherwise anyone would be able to edit the wiki. That we have to lock down installation of unsigned extensions in Firefox on Linux because spyware/nagware in the form of add-ons that re-install themselves have been observed in the wild (on Windows) and caused problems.

Those sound like proposed solutions, not the underlying concerns. Motivating concerns here might be things like "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info", "people will unknowingly install spyware".

> Those sound like proposed solutions

Yes.

> not the underlying concerns

The stated concern embedded in the first example is "anyone would be able to edit the wiki".

> Motivating concerns here might be things like "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info", "people will unknowingly install spyware".

Right. That's the point. The concern that "anyone would be able to edit the wiki" is not a valid concern. The concern that "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info [if just allow anyone to edit it]" has to be determined through empiricism. Avoiding locking down the wiki and seeing whether it fills up with junk will reveal whether the concern was valid. It's possible that it's an invalid concern and therefore requires no solution.