I’m going to word this carefully because I don’t want this to sound like I’m fishing for reassurance or doing the whole “am I secretly good?” thing.

I’m not a beginner beginner, but I’m also nowhere near where I want to be. I write a lot. Not always consistently in the noble disciplined writer way, but enough that I’m past the point where “just write more” feels like useful advice by itself.

The problem I’m having is this:

I genuinely can’t tell the difference between my “voice” and my bad habits anymore.

Like, I know everyone says voice is the natural way you see the world, the rhythm of your sentences, the kind of things you notice, etc. Fine. I get that in theory.

But what if the thing that feels natural is also the thing making the writing worse?

I over-explain. I repeat emotional beats. I make characters think the same thought three different ways because apparently I do not trust the reader to understand anything unless I put a neon sign over it. I also have this habit of making every sentence slightly dramatic, like every paragraph is trying to prove it belongs in a novel.

And the annoying part is that when I’m writing it, it feels like style. It feels intentional. It feels like “this is how I write.”

Then I reread it two days later and I’m like, no, this is not voice. This is insecurity wearing a coat.

But then I cut too much and suddenly everything feels flat and dead and not mine anymore.

So I’m stuck in this weird loop where my raw writing feels bloated, but my edited writing feels emotionally sanded down. I don’t know where the actual good middle is.

Has anyone else had this problem? Where you genuinely cannot tell whether something is part of your style or just a flaw you’ve become attached to?

How do you separate “this is my voice” from “this is just a crutch I keep defending because it feels familiar”?

I’m especially interested in practical methods, not just “read more” or “get feedback,” because I am doing those things. I need ways to actually train my eye for this.

Would appreciate any thoughts, even if the answer is that I’m overthinking this in the most writerly way possible.

How much has your taste in books changed over the years? Has it changed much, or not? How did it change? Do tell!

Hi all!

I am new to the community, and to the site. I was referred to Quibble a month or so ago by a fellow web serial author, and recently placed a submission. After the initial review, I received the terms below, and I wanted to bring up several points for community discussion and clarification.

Please note, I messaged the mod team for permission prior to making this post, and while some of my thoughts below will seem cynical, they are purely for the purposes of furthering discussion, and not actual beliefs I hold. So far, I have been impressed by the Quibble team's swift response to any concerns noted, and their commitment to streamlining and simplifying complex terms while making concrete promises to the authors on the website.

I am making this post in part because of my own questions, but also because I imagine as the site gains popularity, others may share these concerns when reading the conditions.

I am including relevant sections of the agreement below for ease of reference, though I have grouped them out of order in sections that I believe are closely relevant to each other.

Regarding wind down process: Quibble leaves you with all rights to your work, and allows you have them removed at any time after a wind-down period of 30-45 days per their terms. However, there are exceptions to this.

Section 4.7 clarifies that Quibble may retain some materials indefinitely, even if you request the work be removed from the site. Specifically, they note they may retain promotional materials including social media posts, digital advertising, and content containing excerpts and references to your work created prior to expiration of the License you give them.

I expect this is to prevent the administrative headache of removing trivial quotes/snippets used in brief ads (1-2 lines, maybe a few sentences at most), but I wished to clarify this post and see if anyone had examples of what this means.

It's entirely possible that this could create issues for the author if they later move to a site with exclusivity (such as Amazon's Kindle Unlimited program) if the text is more than a few lines. If it's several paragraphs, it could cause issues, especially since many of the responses from other websites are based on automated decisions.

I have little concern regarding quibble retaining rights to material they produced themselves (editorial comments, input, or archival copies).

Non-disparagement: While the subsequent section 12.19 seems to make this fairly clear, I wanted to get clarification on what would be considered disparagement by Quibble as outlined in section 5.4.

True statements seem to be excluded by 12.9, and so something objective like "I terminated my contract with them because their new revenue model dropped my take-home by 30%" would be protected.

What is less clear is whether this would also protect a sincerely held opinion, like "I found their editorial team difficult to work with," or more subjective and perhaps inflammatory statements like "e.g. worst website I ever worked with, the UI is terrible" etc.

I wouldn't plan to make such statements in a public context (one can state objective facts without being unprofessional), but I am curious if there are specific examples the team had in mind when they included this language in the contract.

Jurisdiction, Service of process These two sections (12.9, 12.17) in combination with the above section on disparagement are particularly concerning to me.

12.9 states that both parties are agreeing to have any legal proceedings in Switzerland, under Swiss law. Given the location of the company, this is understandable, and is likely necessary to prevent nonsense/frivolous lawsuits in other countries from causing an unending stream of issues.

However, it does place authors, especially foreign authors, in somewhat of a concerning space. The cost of travel alone could prove a significant obstacle to any sort of fair proceeding for the author.

In a worst case scenario, where Quibble itself is launching frivolous lawsuits against authors (e.g. they give you $200, then claim your work is AI and demand the money back along with damages for a small but significant amount of money), the author would have to either deal with the possibility of a judgment against them, or the costs associated with defending that suit. Because of section 12.17, the service of the author could happen by an infrequently checked email and not be seen for some time. The 'non-disparagement' clause could then be used as a further deterrent to prevent public disclosure of significant concerns.

When agreeing to terms with anyone, I think it's best to wonder "What would happen if this was a scam?"

I have seen no evidence that Quibble is in any way attempting to do anything untoward. I believe they are acting in good faith. However, that's also what most people who are conned believe.

In short, I have little actual concern about any of the above situations taking place, and I think the terms are reasonable.

I do think it would provide additional reassurance for authors to stipulate that Quibble would only bring a suit for intentional damages/a standard closer to the one they are expecting for themselves, and/or specify that they will only pursue legal action against authors for damages exceeding a relatively high threshold (>$10,000 or similar) to reassure folks that they won't attempt frivolous lawsuits. Admittedly, even if the dollar amount is high, they could still use it as the basis to scare someone into a settlement for a far smaller amount of money, but it still might provide some reassurance.

Exact wording of publishing terms below

4.7

• Promotional materials, social media posts, digital advertising, and other content containing excerpts of, or references to, your Work that were published or created prior to expiry of the License are not affected by its termination. Quibble is not required to delete or remove such materials from its own or any third-party platform.
• Quibble may retain and use archival copies of the Work solely for compliance, legal, and record-keeping purposes.
• Quibble retains all rights in any editorial input, Platform feature placement, recommendation data, internal tags, or promotional activity associated with your Work. Such contributions are Quibble's intellectual property and are not subject to withdrawal, deletion, or reversal.

5.4 Non-Disparagement. You agree that, during the term of this Agreement and at all times following its termination, you will not make, publish, or communicate to any third party — whether in written, oral, digital, or any other form — any statement, comment, review, post, or other communication that is false, misleading, or disparaging regarding Quibble, its Platform, officers, directors, employees, contractors, products, or services. This obligation does not prevent you from: (i) making truthful statements about your own Work or your experience as a Platform user; (ii) providing honest feedback to Quibble directly through designated channels; or (iii) making statements that are required by applicable law or the order of a competent court. Quibble's equivalent obligation applies to any public statements it makes specifically about you in your capacity as an Author.

12.19 No Prohibition on Author's Expression of Truthful Views. Nothing in this Agreement, including Section 5.4 (Non-Disparagement), is intended to prevent any Author from making truthful factual statements, exercising their rights under applicable law, contacting law enforcement or regulatory authorities, or participating in any government investigation or proceeding. Any provision of this Agreement that would restrict such rights is void and unenforceable to that extent.

12.9 Jurisdiction. The courts of the Canton of Zug, Switzerland, shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity, or termination. Each party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts, waives any objection to proceedings brought in those courts on the grounds of venue or inconvenient forum, and agrees not to commence any such proceedings in any other court or tribunal. This submission to jurisdiction is without prejudice to any mandatory consumer protection rules that may apply in the jurisdiction of residence of a consumer Author.

12.17 Service of Process. For the purpose of any legal proceedings arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, service of process or other legal documents on either party by email to the address specified or last notified under Section 12.5 shall constitute valid and effective service, and neither party shall object to the validity of service effected in this manner. This provision is without prejudice to any other method of service permitted by the procedural rules of the Canton of Zug or any other court of competent jurisdiction.

**TLDR**

1. What does Quibble consider disparaging speech?
2. What materials would Quibble keep for advertisements after take-down, and specifically how long would these excerpts be? ( a few lines, a few paragraphs?)
3. What would be an example of something Quibble would take an author to court over, and are there any guarantees that can be added to the site or the contract to specify protections for frivolous lawsuits for both parties? The burden of disputing silly claims in a foreign country is potentially significant.

Why is your favourite book, well. Your favourite book? Was it the plot? The characters? The cover? Perhaps, something else? Do tell!

Here is a new thing. Tell us about your favourite book. Try to get other people to read it! Or, try to get people who dislike that book to like it! Be creative!

Or is it perhaps wishful thinking on the reader’s part? As readers, we have certain expectations and preferences. We imagine the story we’ve read in a specific way, and naturally develop certain expectations regarding the book’s possible future sequel. We often make our opinions known to the author through fan works and fandoms. Do you think a good author will take their readers’ wishes into account? Or does being a good writer mean you must be completely independent and come up with the story entirely on your own?

The ancient Egyptians believed that the soul is divided into two parts. “BA” is the part that moves freely between the worlds of the living and the dead, while “KA” is a powerful force that persists even after our death. When these two parts are united in one person—“AKH”—that person becomes immortal, blessed with the privilege of spending their eternal life among the gods.

This myth reminded me of the connection between the author and the reader. Our souls unite through our shared passion for a story.

Because of this union, the book becomes “immortal.”
Is it nice to ponder such things?