| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 19:39:30
Hi all
As you know, I love Whippersnapper's witty, punny, brilliant reviews. And I was glad to see and vote for his FWFR for Under One Sky: Arab Women in North America Talk About the Hijab. "Hijabbering."
I was also glad to see and vote for Calmer's FWFR for the film: "Hijab is her job."
So can anyone hazard a guess as to why my review for this film was declined several weeks ago: "Hijab. She jabbers."
I had submitted it with the explanation that Hijab is pronounced He-jab. She there's a balance in the review of he does something, she does something, yet still remains true to the film.
I must admit I was quite demoralized by the rejection, so much so that I didn't feel like airing it in public. But having seen Whipper's and calmer's reviews - both approved today - I'm once again BaffledBabe.
Constructive comments gratefully received.
TIA.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 18:24:33
Now, sometimes I DO brood, but not much over FWFR. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 17:49:06
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Yes, of course. My bad.
You are, of course, forgiven ... girlie!   
|
| Downtown |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 17:04:34
Yes, of course. My bad. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 16:26:23
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
It's quite similar to Whipper's review. Perhaps his came first and yours was deemed a repeat?
If that were the case he would know that was why it was declined...unless of course another MERP didn't feel he was entitled to an explanation, as is often the case with me.
Who's ''he" ? I assure you I am not of the male persuasion 
Hey, everyone -- I'm happy to let my re-sub sit until it's called to bat. The FWFR may be brooding, but I'm not!!! |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 16:23:20
Well, guys [that's JTC and Sal] -- it's brooding in my pending pile getting ready for hatching. I forget the gestation period ... remind me?
|
| Downtown |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 16:22:37
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
It's quite similar to Whipper's review. Perhaps his came first and yours was deemed a repeat?
If that were the case he would know that was why it was declined...unless of course another MERP didn't feel he was entitled to an explanation, as is often the case with me. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 15:50:09
I hope so too. |
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 14:19:55
I hope you resolved the problem Baftababe.
Josh the cat |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 11:50:38
Oh, that changes things. (This is why I don't delete rejections - and I always forget that some other people do.) Napper's was first now then. I think they're too similar to have both, but yours does have the 'he'/she thing (whereas napper's has concision), so I guess that's the basis for having both. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 11:46:55
Hey, hey -- I don't want anyone to delete any of these reviews. I think they're all very good and none is similar enough to the others -- and certainly on a lot of random pages I could find reviews far more similar which were approved.
I can't really tell whose reviews were written first because, as I said, I was so demoralized when mine was rejected a while ago that I deleted it, hoping I'd be able to forget about it.
But when Whipper's and calmer's were approved ... I just thought I'd open it up to you all.
In any case, I've now re-subbed mine, with Whipper's suggestion of pluralizing hijabs.
We' now in the lap of the Gods uhm MERPs.
May the sun shine upon their lovely countenances 
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 11:33:46
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
It's pretty obvious that if Baffy's review has to be rewritten to get accepted then its written AFTER my review.
No, her revised suggestion is not significantly different to her original submission. Your review being approved is sufficient evidence that hers was valid. It was simply a MERP error.
quote:
It's ludicrous to suggest I should delete my review because someone wrote an earlier review which was rejected and then rewrote it after mine was published.
No, it has not really been rewritten - just marginally tweaked. All that matters (in ethical terms) is who came up with the idea first. If B.B.'s came first but you feel that yours is a significant improvement on it, then that is a slightly different thing.
quote:
However, whether the two reviews are too close or not is, in the first instance Baffy's, and in the second it's the MERPs.
I don't think you managed to finish this sentence, but anyway - anyone can comment on the validity of keeping similar reviews who wants to - that is sort of the point of having a discussion forum. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 10:31:09
It's pretty obvious that if Baffy's review has to be rewritten to get accepted then its written AFTER my review. It's ludicrous to suggest I should delete my review because someone wrote an earlier review which was rejected and then rewrote it after mine was published.
However, whether the two reviews are too close or not is, in the first instance Baffy's, and in the second it's the MERPs. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 09:08:05
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
As for timing I have no way of knowing when he wrote his.
Well, you can readily tell which came first, which is the important thing, by referring to the I.D. numbers. (Hover over the Report or Edit buttons and look at the bottom left of the window.)
The reviews are both fine for the film and I would say too similar to both exist. (Not necessarily, though possibly, too similar to both be approved, but whoever was second should not choose to keep theirs.) |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 23:58:32
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
As to whether using the singular "she" is valid about a plural activity, well, you are entirely reasonable to say it seems valid to you. I'd add though that a MERP might be just as reasonable in saying it doesn't seem valid to him, or her, or them () and reject your review. Let the fwiffer beware!
At the very least you should change "Hijab" to "Hijabs" as this is the correct verbal form - ie he jabs - to match either "she jabbers" or "they jabber".
End of.
Yes, I think that's a good suggestion to make hijabs plural. As to the woman/women thing -- rejection on those grounds is at the very least inconsistent, if only because calmer's FWFR was accepted.
Okay - unless Tori or anyone else has some other advice, I'll resub as Hijabs, she jabbers.
Here's hoping for the best and thanks both Whipper and Tori.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 22:51:40
Personally I didn't think it necessary to state a female presence as it is so explicit in the film title.
Also the term jabber, like it or not, is, in its usage, more suggestive of female conversation than male. You may not like it, but that's the way it is used more often than not. So, in my opinion, "Hijabs, they jabber" in this context implicitly suggests male/female. The female is nebulous, but so is the male as the "he" is also only suggested by "hijab". Even if the reader missed this, you still have the verb conjugation idea to hold the review together.
As to whether using the singular "she" is valid about a plural activity, well, you are entirely reasonable to say it seems valid to you. I'd add though that a MERP might be just as reasonable in saying it doesn't seem valid to him, or her, or them () and reject your review. Let the fwiffer beware!
At the very least you should change "Hijab" to "Hijabs" as this is the correct verbal form - ie he jabs - to match either "she jabbers" or "they jabber".
End of.
|
|
|
