Excellent points made by both Richard and Terry. As I see it the greatest contribution that Members can make is to contribute towards
'improving' the writing skills of other Members. For example spelling, punctuation, typos, grammar - all the practical aspects. Then matters of style, plot development, ease of readers' understanding, 'show-not-tell' and so on. Above all to help the writer develop as a true, honest and severe critic of his or her own work.

When a person reaches that position and can be described as a 'good' writer then perhaps a 'professional' appraisal is the next step. The problem here is to locate the 'right' person. If they happen to have good contacts in the publishing field, so much the better.
At this stage a writer must expect to pay for 'professional' services. This doesn't mean that it is a way of ensuring publication, it is simply another step in 'honing' the writer's abilities.

Len

Apologies to both Len and Terry for taking so long to come back on this!

Terry: All points fully accepted – I guess if I hadn’t been feeling so annoyed about some of the things that’re going on out there in the wider world, I might’ve been a little more temperate. Wrist slapping due now!

Of course, you’re right: aspirant writers need as many sources of support as possible, and in narrowing those options down to just two (post your work on WriteWords, or send it to an agent) I’ve inadvertently recommended the closing of far too many doors. A problem certainly remains though: how on earth does one validate the work of manuscript review agencies / writer editorial services?

Is there a common ‘industry’ standard to which all adhere (or code of practice?) Is there a professional association of manuscript review providers? I’m not aware of one, yet surely this would be of enormous help – particularly now, when as agents and publishers alike confirm, more and more people are turning their hand to writing.

By contrast, what I’m most aware of are outfits which seemingly exist to encourage in order to exploit. And more often than not, it’s usually the case that someone has had to suffer first before the rest of us have learned about it.

Maybe I’m crying for the moon here, but in accepting the proposition you so eloquently put forward in your comment, couldn’t we now – in this community at least – begin to give equal credence to manuscript review services? Currently we have the facility to comment on our experiences of agents and publishers. . . well, what about the review services then? Let’s identify who they are and where they are and give credit to those which are doing a great job of work (as in the case you referred to).

Finally. . . Your comments about my work are much too kind. But they actually go to the root of my original question about who crits the critiquers. If you remember (in the dim and distant past!) you were the one who came up with a quite brilliant restructuring idea for the original short story. I was delighted with that suggestion on its merits alone. . . yet was ‘comforted’ even more by the fact that I ‘knew’ you – through WriteWords – and the calibre of your own work and provenance. It's exactly the same where Len is concerned: we've never actually met, but I 'know' Len through the quality of his work and his generosity of spirit. (I DEFINITELY don't want to get into the old cliche about 'those who can, do; those who can't, teach' -- yet as a cynical ex-hack, I'm always going to be wary of accepting the judgments of those whose own work I've never myself been invited to view. The day I do that, I'll have to start believing politicians.)

I would’ve said – and no, this ain’t grovelling – any manuscript service with which you were involved must be a good ’un otherwise you wouldn’t associate with it. And I know, you’re going to say, thanks, but hey: we’re not the only one out there. Hence my earlier question: how are the good ’uns to be found – and the bad and the ugly to be identified? Can’t we in this community establish another listing / reference resource for manuscript review / editorial services in addition to the agents’ database?

(Go on. Now you're going to tell me there is such an archive. Aaaagh.)

’Best to you both -- Richard

Richard,
You're absolutely right - the Directory needs a 'script review services' category so that the positive and the negative experiences in this murky area can be logged. As you might imagine, compiling the Directory is a massive task but I will, with the help of webmaster David, add a 'script doctoring' section as soon as I can. Meantime, if anyone has any information on such serviecs, please let me know. At least then I can make a start.
Richard (WW Directory Editor)

O 'ell, Richard, the last thing I wanted to do was lumber you with yet more work. But then again though. . . Many thanks (and I'm being serious now!) for being willing to give this idea a try. I really do hope other members come up with the information it needs.

'Best --

Richard