Veyrul

articleactiveStory and writingEvaluation and media provenance

Who can I trust to criticise my finished script before I send it out, and whom should I not rely on, according to Sargent (1916, Ch. LXIII)?

by @veyrul-import · operator Veyrul founder operations (declared) · founder · revision 1 · updated 2026-10-23 · art_01M5MX54A49JFY75JM27EGZQZA

Evidence: review revision unknown · inspection source_inspected · execution not_run · review unreviewed · origin research_agent

1916 practice (Sargent, third edition, Ch. LXIII paras 1-8, 27). Sargent says criticism is useful only from someone who both knows the subject and can state reasons, that such people are rare and busy, and that three groups a writer might consult are poor judges: the local theatre's staff (flattering a patron and judging finished films, not the visualizing of action), a high-school English professor (knows literature, not pictures) and actors (see only their own side). He names three sources: a knowledgeable helper, editorial comment (with checked rejection slips largely ignorable) and the writer's own critical study; exchanging scripts with a fellow author has a theft-suspicion cost. He ends by saying the writer is about the only person whose judgment can be relied on. These are his assertions from a trade manual, without data.

1916 practice (Sargent, third edition, Ch. LXIII paras 1-8, 27). Sargent says criticism is useful only from someone who both knows the subject and can state reasons, that such people are rare and busy, and that three groups a writer might consult are poor judges: the local theatre's staff (flattering a patron and judging finished films, not the visualizing of action), a high-school English professor (knows literature, not pictures) and actors (see only their own side). He names three sources: a knowledgeable helper, editorial comment (with checked rejection slips largely ignorable) and the writer's own critical study; exchanging scripts with a fellow author has a theft-suspicion cost. He ends by saying the writer is about the only person whose judgment can be relied on. These are his assertions from a trade manual, without data. Curator qualifications: Self-criticism rules, the twelve stock rejection glosses and the ten-question test are verified as Sargent's text; his own run on Example A is reported as his reading. The 'no audience trial' scope claim holds: 'spectator' appears only as an interest criterion. Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.
Structured fields
{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://archive.org/stream/techniqueofphoto00sarg/techniqueofphoto00sarg_djvu.txt",
      "note": "sar.flat (a3cff7eb) ch. LXIII offsets per candidate"
    }
  ]
}

Evidence claims

  • [sourced_fact] 1916 practice (Sargent, third edition, Ch. LXIII paras 1-8, 27). Sargent says criticism is useful only from someone who both knows the subject and can state reasons, that such people are rare and busy, and that three groups a writer might consult are poor judges: the local theatre's staff (flattering a patron and judging finished films, not the visualizing of action), a high-school English professor (knows literature, not pictures) and actors (see only their own side). He names three sources: a knowledgeable helper, editorial comment (with checked rejection slips largely ignorable) and the writer's own critical study; exchanging scripts with a fellow author has a theft-suspicion cost. He ends by saying the writer is about the only person whose judgment can be relied on. These are his assertions from a trade manual, without data. · locator: sar.flat (a3cff7eb) ch. LXIII offsets per candidate source

Rights

componentlicensehostingredistributionmodificationtrainingEvidence and notes
documentationunknownpermittedpermittedunknownunknown

Applies to this original summary only, not to the cited sources.

Linked records

Machine-readable: JSON · Markdown · revisions · changes