I didn't think I was particularly sensitive to epithets...

[ratcreature]

...but this historical m/m romance novel I'm reading (Best Laid Plaids by Ella Stainton) is driving me crazy. Between both of them referring to themselves and each other sometimes by first, sometimes by last name, and also by hair color, body size, age and occasionally nationality in a dizzying, randomized cycle, there are entirely too many things to refer to just two people.

It's really frustrating, because the sex scenes are decent otherwise, the paranormal plot so far is interesting, and the characters likeable, but this makes it nearly unreadable.

Comments

[ratcreature]

I certainly use "no beta" tags/notes as a data point when deciding whether to check something out too, along with the summary, author's note, tags etc.

It's just my guess that the tone of these notes intentionally highlighting the lack of a beta (rather than for example just not mentioning it either way) might be a reaction to having been scolded for not using betas in the past (whether personally or as a feeling of a general fandom mood that translated into feeling scolded) and pushing back against that. It's my impression that there's always a bit of a seesaw in what take on fanwriting is the most vocal in a fandom corner (a bit depending on BNFs and cliques popularity at a time).

[sealie]

As one who has also be scolded/patronised/insulted for not having a beta, I do know where you're coming from. Not having a beta doesn't mean that a story is inherently bad. I guess to a certain extent it speaks of joy, enthusiasm, rush to post and share and/or I'm doing this for fun it; shouldn't be a chore.

Fandom does chose its corners. It is nice, for example, to see Mary Sue themes being deconstructed and being seen as a positive, at the moment. I wonder where the seesaw will take it. Because you’re right there are a lot of seesaws.