I read through things more than once; the first time is used to get a general feel for the story; the later ones are to correct any of the little errors--spelling, grammar--that I might've missed the first time. Basically, you can expect the story to come out with mostly-correct grammar and spelling, but it might take a bit of time because I go through it really closely.

Also, just a warning: don't cry and whine if something comes out a bit . . . different. An editor should NEVER change the idea of a story, but if something is stated in an inane or just plain stupid fashion (if, for instance, the author seriously put in a part where someone tries to "give troll with sword"), the editor should clean that up in a manner that keeps with the rest of the story's style. This is something that I wholeheartedly agree with, and I'd usually suggest a few different things to do with it to get the writer to come up with their own idea.

Please note that everything below is almost entirely general statements. If something you've written is like something I don't like--for instance, it's basically pointless and stupid unless the reader can fathom some meaning or theme you have behind it--I probably won't like it, but it's always possible that I will. There are no certainties.

I'm REALLY good at picking up on grammar and spelling mistakes, and also at giving synonyms for words that are overused in a particular piece. As for understanding the flow of a story, I think I'm pretty good at it, because some of my own stuff jumps around a lot, so I don't ever really get confused. Um . . . I like to think that I don't argue with the writer about what should be done; rather, I give suggestions, and they can be taken or left as the writer sees fit and I won't care.

I can't write poetry, which means that I have trouble doing much of anything with it--analyzing it, correcting it, whatever. It's hard for me. I have the same problems with plays. If I get distracted partway through a piece of literature, I often find it difficult to get back into it. This holds true for both reading and writing, and it might mean that a betaread can take WAY longer than it normally would. To further complicate matters, I do everything--reading and writing--at totally random times. I might leave a story I'm writing or reading alone for a couple days until I come back to it.

Stories with action are definitely the kind of things I prefer, because that's what I write. In terms of that, sci-fi-, horror-, and fantasy-action are all very good. I also enjoy stories that are realistic in their own worlds; the more you keep to an established mythos and continuity, the better. WITHOUT action, I like the kind of psychotically-philosophical sci-fi stuff (like most things by Robert A. Heinlein and Orson Scott Card, or, specifically, Fahrenheit 451 and Slaughterhouse Five, the latter of which COULD be perceived as sci-fi). Straight horror stories (a la Lovecraft) are another thing that I really enjoy. Super-epic fantasy (The Lord of Rings, The Wheel of Time) rocks really hard, too.

First and foremost: any story involving a group of teens that must somehow save a city/country/continent/world/solar system/galaxy/universe. These kind of stories are so overdone and lame in every respect that I can't stand reading them. Many free-verse poems annoy me, as I don't understand WHY it's poetry if it has no rhyme scheme or rhythm. Any piece of work that has a lot of unnecessary whining by characters is another type I can't stand; this kind rules out most essays, as they are written in protest of something, and protesting is whining, no matter how cultured it may be. Deus ex machina is something that almost never sits well with me; the "almost" is because I can tolerate it if it's satisfactorily explained later. Stories with huge amounts of information about insignificant things are very aggravating. Anything that I have to understand some philosophy or theme of the work to be able to enjoy is generally so infuriating that I can't stand reading it. Oh, and one more thing: if you can't write good dialogue, edit that stuff feverishly or use it very sparingly, because stories with all kindsa bad dialogue are extremely painful. To me, "bad dialogue" encompasses wooden speaking, Shakespearean language, or dialogue with ridiculously huge amounts of swearing.

All Fiction

General Romance Humor

Drama Adventure Mystery

Horror Supernatural Suspense

Sci-Fi Fantasy Crime