Comments on: “Very strong medicine. I recommend a dose of it to the VQR.” http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/02/reader-comments-part-2/ A National Blog of Literature & Discussion Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:47:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: clicking is more interesting than packing at pinkyspaperhaus http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/02/reader-comments-part-2/#comment-2528 clicking is more interesting than packing at pinkyspaperhaus Sat, 06 Sep 2008 06:50:48 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=263#comment-2528 [...] became belatedly aware of the kerfluffle over the Virginia Quarterly Review’s (over?)sharing of their readers’ comments on their slush pile — wish I’d seen them, and sorry [...] [...] became belatedly aware of the kerfluffle over the Virginia Quarterly Review’s (over?)sharing of their readers’ comments on their slush pile — wish I’d seen them, and sorry [...]

]]> By: Waldo Jaquith http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/02/reader-comments-part-2/#comment-2407 Waldo Jaquith Thu, 15 May 2008 13:28:37 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=263#comment-2407 As we've explained there, Susan, the disastrous Netscape 7 doesn't support many basic internet technologies. (That's why AOL, its creator, completely abandoned Netscape on February 1 of this year.) There's simply nothing that we can do about that, as evidenced by AOL's inability to get Netscape 7 to work on its own website. We're not asking you to "bow down before Bill Gates" -- in fact, we specifically recommend Firefox, Microsoft's leading competitor in the browser market. I've personally put an enormous amount of time into making sure that our website supports every browser under the sun. But the 0.136% of internet users who still use Netscape -- such as yourself -- are simply out of luck, and that fault lies entirely with AOL/Netscape. As we’ve explained there, Susan, the disastrous Netscape 7 doesn’t support many basic internet technologies. (That’s why AOL, its creator, completely abandoned Netscape on February 1 of this year.) There’s simply nothing that we can do about that, as evidenced by AOL’s inability to get Netscape 7 to work on its own website. We’re not asking you to “bow down before Bill Gates” — in fact, we specifically recommend Firefox, Microsoft’s leading competitor in the browser market. I’ve personally put an enormous amount of time into making sure that our website supports every browser under the sun. But the 0.136% of internet users who still use Netscape — such as yourself — are simply out of luck, and that fault lies entirely with AOL/Netscape.

]]> By: Susan Zakin http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/02/reader-comments-part-2/#comment-2406 Susan Zakin Thu, 15 May 2008 05:42:26 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=263#comment-2406 I'm posting what I found on VQR's submission page. There does seem to be an epidemic of snottiness out there in Virginia. For a state that is home to the CIA and Oliver North, I have to say I'm a bit confused as to why. All this over a National Magazine Award? "May I suggest a nice Sauvignon Blanc?" might be more appropriate, guys. (Dry and grapefruity, thanks.) Otherwise, stop dissing a moderately Luddite (and well-published) writer, eg. myself, who has been refusing to bow down before Bill Gates since before Firefox was around. And for twenty cents a word? Yow. From the submissions page: Your Browser Won't Work The web browser that you're using is Netscape 7, a five-year-old program that was roundly panned at the time of its release and was promptly abandoned by AOL, its creator. It works very, very badly and, in fact, will not function on the VQR Submission System at all. It won't even work on AOL's own website. Absolutely any other web browser will work here, but not Netscape 7. May we recommend Firefox? I’m posting what I found on VQR’s submission page. There does seem to be an epidemic of snottiness out there in Virginia. For a state that is home to the CIA and Oliver North, I have to say I’m a bit confused as to why. All this over a National Magazine Award? “May I suggest a nice Sauvignon Blanc?” might be more appropriate, guys. (Dry and grapefruity, thanks.) Otherwise, stop dissing a moderately Luddite (and well-published) writer, eg. myself, who has been refusing to bow down before Bill Gates since before Firefox was around. And for twenty cents a word? Yow.

From the submissions page:
Your Browser Won’t Work

The web browser that you’re using is Netscape 7, a five-year-old program that was roundly panned at the time of its release and was promptly abandoned by AOL, its creator. It works very, very badly and, in fact, will not function on the VQR Submission System at all. It won’t even work on AOL’s own website.

Absolutely any other web browser will work here, but not Netscape 7. May we recommend Firefox?

]]> By: litmag blogs « Writing Under a Pseudonym http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/02/reader-comments-part-2/#comment-2386 litmag blogs « Writing Under a Pseudonym Tue, 06 May 2008 17:49:40 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=263#comment-2386 [...] Of course, they then made a list of glowing reviews. [...] [...] Of course, they then made a list of glowing reviews. [...]

]]> By: eNotes Book Blog » Blog Archive » Guo JingMing: Worse Than Communism… http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/02/reader-comments-part-2/#comment-2378 eNotes Book Blog » Blog Archive » Guo JingMing: Worse Than Communism… Mon, 05 May 2008 18:21:09 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=263#comment-2378 [...] Maybe it’s unfair but it’s definitely not unfunny. Also, for you wussies out there, here is a list of *snore* positive things they have [...] [...] Maybe it’s unfair but it’s definitely not unfunny. Also, for you wussies out there, here is a list of *snore* positive things they have [...]

]]> By: Maud Newton: Blog http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/02/reader-comments-part-2/#comment-2377 Maud Newton: Blog Mon, 05 May 2008 03:43:59 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=263#comment-2377 [...] “A bawdy limerick? Really?” Virginia Quarterly Review posts some in-house notes on rejected submissions. (See also.) [...] [...] “A bawdy limerick? Really?” Virginia Quarterly Review posts some in-house notes on rejected submissions. (See also.) [...]

]]> By: links for 2008-05-03 « Charlottesville Words http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/02/reader-comments-part-2/#comment-2372 links for 2008-05-03 « Charlottesville Words Sat, 03 May 2008 17:34:29 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=263#comment-2372 [...] “Very strong medicine. I recommend a dose of it to the VQR.” The other side of the page. [...] [...] “Very strong medicine. I recommend a dose of it to the VQR.” The other side of the page. [...]

]]> By: Lee http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/02/reader-comments-part-2/#comment-2368 Lee Fri, 02 May 2008 22:33:23 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=263#comment-2368 Waldo, nice balance of the scales. Actually, this made me think of something else I had wondered about: Once a story receives a note like the ones in today's post, does it go directly to the editor? Or does it get passed to another reader for a second round? That is, how many times does a story get read, once it's clear the story might be right for VQR? Waldo, nice balance of the scales. Actually, this made me think of something else I had wondered about: Once a story receives a note like the ones in today’s post, does it go directly to the editor? Or does it get passed to another reader for a second round? That is, how many times does a story get read, once it’s clear the story might be right for VQR?

]]> By: Waldo Jaquith http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/02/reader-comments-part-2/#comment-2367 Waldo Jaquith Fri, 02 May 2008 19:28:00 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=263#comment-2367 <blockquote>See! This proves my point. The negative comments were more fun to read</blockquote> Not a big fan of the warm-and-fuzzies, huh? :) I should mention that these reviews have been anonymized -- names have been removed and key submission facts have been tweaked so that authors are unlikely to recognize even their own works. Those changes should have no impact on the substance of the reviews, though.

See! This proves my point. The negative comments were more fun to read

Not a big fan of the warm-and-fuzzies, huh? :)

I should mention that these reviews have been anonymized — names have been removed and key submission facts have been tweaked so that authors are unlikely to recognize even their own works. Those changes should have no impact on the substance of the reviews, though.

]]> By: Wistar Watts Murray http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/02/reader-comments-part-2/#comment-2366 Wistar Watts Murray Fri, 02 May 2008 19:25:06 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=263#comment-2366 See! This proves my point. The negative comments were more fun to read. :) See! This proves my point. The negative comments were more fun to read. :)

]]>