Any insights about the difference between HM and SHM?

Martin posted this a few months ago...

Honorable Mentions are 5-10% of entries. As a very rough explanation, it means a story was good enough to finish (most aren't), but there were issues that kept it from being a Finalist contender.

Silver Honorable Mentions are rare. They're extremely close, probably publishable, but a flaw holds them back.

A Semi-Finalist is a story that Jody believes is good enough to win; but she only gets to pick 8 Finalists, and there are 8 better stories this quarter (in her opinion). As compensation, she writes a critique, explaining how she thinks it could be even better. (That means you can't resubmit this story.)

A Finalist is one of the top 8 for the quarter. A Winner is one of the top 3 from these 8.

I understand the differences in the categories in the broad sense. I wish I could figure out the flaws in my own stories. If I knew, I think could make the next story better. My 1Q40 Silver also got a Silver from Dave. It was the only story I resubbed. There must be something right with it, and something wrong with it. I won't submit it again; time to move on. Someday I hope I get a semifinalist on a story because that critique would be so helpful. 

Also keep in mind: Sometimes a story doesn't make Finalist because there's another, marginally better story on the same theme. Jody doesn't like to have two on the same theme, both for the sake of balance in the anthology and because they would split the vote and neither would win.

Posted by: @martin-l-shoemaker

↑

Also keep in mind: Sometimes a story doesn't make Finalist because there's another, marginally better story on the same theme. Jody doesn't like to have two on the same theme, both for the sake of balance in the anthology and because they would split the vote and neither would win.

Posted by: @sandy

↑

I understand the differences in the categories in the broad sense. I wish I could figure out the flaws in my own stories. If I knew, I think could make the next story better. My 1Q40 Silver also got a Silver from Dave. It was the only story I resubbed. There must be something right with it, and something wrong with it. I won't submit it again; time to move on. Someday I hope I get a semifinalist on a story because that critique would be so helpful. 

WotF is only one market and there are lots of entries. I am happy about my HMs but thought my last two entries would be higher, much higher by the feedback from readers.

I read my Q1 HM and found that in the middle I dropped the action/tension pace and lost realism (realism in regards to fantasy). I’m betting that those issues are what disappointed the judges and thus made the story an HM.

I’m trying to write a new story each time, but also want to update my HMs and resubmit to see if I’m learning and on the right track. 

You could also ask for other in the forum to read your story and they may be able to help you identify where questions/stumbles arise.

I'm a bit busy with family issue right now, but would be willing to do an HM story swap to see if we could help identify areas we can improve. PM if interested

Posted by: @physa

↑

Ah... so the better question might be what makes a story worthy of being a finalist. Maybe the better approach would be to aim even higher than a SHM. 

To roughly summarize the entirety of these forums:

Write about someone interesting doing something interesting somewhere interesting.

Give them a flaw, ideally one you've struggled with yourself, and give them opportunities to grow across the length of the story.

Then make sure it follows as much of Martin's list as you can without compromising your vision.

Then add a truck load of luck, or talent; writer's preference. Personally I like the former.

I think that's it. Should be simple, right?

@ease talent is a myth.

https://medium.com/swlh/dont-believe-in-natural-talent-4d2547349483

And many other sources.

Talent is the result of hard work. And the idea that someone is naturally talented is both an insult to those that put the work in and an excuse for others not to.

@undreamedages is it a myth, or does it come from hard work? 

I never mentioned it being natural. ?

Talent = Passion + Hard Work + Endurance 

I do think that there's such a thing as talent. However -- setting aside what tend to be extreme caveats, such as certain physical traits being unalterable and yet necessary for certain physical accomplishments to be possible -- we conflate talented too much with skilled. Talent is nice, to be sure, it gives you a step-up at something you try to do. But that's all. All the talent in the world won't translate to actual skill unless you put in the work; and nor is a lack of talent necessarily an obstacle to developing skill without it.

I see talent like being able to roll with advantage (two dice and take the higher value) on a Dungeons & Dragons skill check. You have a higher probability of your efforts succeeding in your area of specialty. Most people have something that comes to them easily. I would say that most of the people on this forum have a talent or knack for writing.

That being said, dedication to learning a craft, even without ‘talent’, has the ability to easily beat out someone who has talent but doesn’t do the work.

Talent doesn’t replace good editing and revision, putting your work out there hundreds of times, or learning story structure. In fact, talent can sometimes hinder rather than help because the person might not feel the same drive to push themselves.

Interesting how this became a discussion about talent. I think talent is simply the capacity to learn quickly [as in how quickly can you learn is based on the degree of talent you have], but talent alone is not enough. No matter what a person's potential to learn a skill is, it takes diligent practice, hard work, and a lot of time. An analogy can be seen between me and my sister. My sister was labeled gifted and talented as she has a large vocabulary, intensely fast and accurate math ability, and always scores in the 99% category on any aptitude test. On the other hand, I was never labeled as gifted and talented based on these measures. However, I managed to get 2 B.S. degrees [the first being in Biochemistry in 4 years and a summer], 2 M.S. degrees, a Ph.D., and a postdoc. My sister struggled to get a B.S. [changed majors multiple times and had to transfer to a different school]. And she eventually obtained a master's degree [after working for some years first]. What was the difference? Persistence. I have always been much more persistent than my sister. And I'm hoping my persistence will also pay off in this contest [eventually]. Persistence is the key.

I like to define talent as a proclivity or drive or desire towards something. Different people are just drawn towards different things. Our odds of getting better at something are greater when it’s something we love doing. I’m good at backpacking because I love backpacking and do it a lot. Yes, it’s hard every time I do it because it’s a physically demanding activity. But overcoming the difficulty for me is also part of the experience. Other people might say it’s one of my talents. I say it’s just one the few things I love doing. 

Posted by: @physa

↑

Interesting how this became a discussion about talent. 

If there's one thing I can say for certain, returning to the subject of the thread: the difference between an HM and an SHM is not natural talent.

And that's an interesting comparison between yourself and your sister. Congratulations on your many accomplishments and, more importantly (in my opinion), your persistence!

Posted by: @ease

↑

If there's one thing I can say for certain, returning to the subject of the thread: the difference between an HM and an SHM is not natural talent.

@ease agreed!

I went back to look at my HM versus SHM stories to try and work out what I'd argue their most major problem was (including some that might be contest specific), and being fairly general about the type of problem it was. This is chronological, but skipping resubs if the same issues persisted, and skipping any where I can't remember which iteration of the story I actually submitted. Turns out, there are some themes here.

- HM - Pacing and repetition, dark ending, maybe some argument about emotional depth or engagement
- SHM - Dark story, open or ambiguous ending
- HM - Pacing problem, dark ending
- HM - Bad pacing, weak ending
- SHM - Dark story, probably too violent (ending was dark, but was a comeuppance -- earned SHM under David, HM under Jody)
- HM - Bad pacing, dark ending
- HM - Maybe a dark ending, but nothing else major (I sold this one later with very minor edits, maybe just a market misfit for WOTF)
- HM - Pacing issues (when I resolved these and resubmitted, this story became a SF)
- SHM - Dark story, possibly a thematic stretch for PG-13
- HM - Act 3 pacing issues
- SHM - This was definitely my emotionally strongest entry, but also very dark thematically--maybe a hard sell for WOTF
- SHM - Some confusion around the story logic in the 2nd to 3rd act transition that I think may break disbelief
- HM - Lacking a strong emotional core, too slow to get started

What I would say from that is, for me specifically, my biggest problem with HM versus SHM is pacing problems. Stories with significant pacing issues never placed above HM. Beyond that, if I look at my stories, dark stories and dark settings place pretty well for me, but dark endings do worse (though because of overlap with pacing, that may be a stretch to conclude--I do feel that the change from SHM to HM under Jody suggests it may at least indicate a preference, though).

There are a few other details, but generally speaking, I feel that the flaws that prevent HM reaching SHM are more major ones. Once you reach SHM, it's a mixture of market fit, tuning, and refinement. There are flaws, but they're usually not so pronounced or significant, even once you identify them.

(This has been an interesting exercise for me, actually--I'm going to be thinking about it for a while.)

A prateworthy subject,

I have 15 HMs and 5 SHMs.

Take as given that Story is a description of a character and their attempt/s to achieve a goal despite obstacles.

HM is a complete and readable story within the rules of the contest (RWC can be incomplete or outside the rules of the contest).

SHM rises above HM when primary characters are properly rounded out (They have internal flaws that they must overcome to achieve the goal, they have history, they have relationships that define personality, social status, and economic status. In short, they are a fully formed individual.)

SHM rises above HM when events follow logically (Logic of the story milieu, and not necessarily our real-world logic).

SHM rises above HM when the plot transitions smoothly from one scene to the next without tripping-up the reader. Don't ever force the reader to think, believing that "intelligent" readers will understand. Story is not a college textbook. Readers are reading because they want to be entertained.

SHM rises above HM when every scene drives the story forward to its conclusion. This is about story shape. Libby Hawker mentions in her book "Take Off Your Pants!" that the story should be in the shape of an inverted triangle, constantly narrowing focus until the end. If stories include sections where scenes are set apart by time or space, each section should take this same inverted triangle shape.

SHM rises above HM when the obstacles and/or solutions to them involve twists.

SHM rises above HM when each scene is vividly impressed on the senses. The author needs to impart the physical world of the story upon the reader and do it in such a way that it is an organic part of the story rather than a laundry list of environmental attributes. Show the reader that the physical world has a function in the story, it affects the character in positive or negative ways; it is what showing is all about.

SHM rises above HM when the stakes of failure are demonstrably high. 

Any one of the above can lift a story that one Can read into a story that one Wants to read, which is ultimately the difference between HM and SHM.

Have fun,

Kent

@doctorjest 

Ooh this is fun!

SF- Passive narrator (this was in my note from Dave). I fixed it and later sold the story.

SHM- Pacing problems in the middle, slightly too short (3,000 words), and the ending is probably too open-ended for WotF

HM- Trope-y theme, obvious plot, but I enjoyed writing it. Was surprised then this got an HM instead of an R.

HM- Again a little short, prose was a little purple for WotF and relied heavily on that juicy imagery to enhance the story rather than character depth. I found a market for this one too.

R- This one was initially frustrating for me because I really liked it and thought I did well, but shortly before the results came out I realized the beginning took waaay too long to get started and the ultimate conflict was buried behind lengthy character introduction.

I've been too busy to keep up, but I wanted to add this on talent. Judge Dean Wesley Smith argues that whether you believe in talent or think it's a myth (as he does), discussions of talent can be dangerous.

A writer who has a confidence problem (as many do) is told that they have no talent. They decided there's no point in trying, even though hard work, persistence, consistency, and study are worth far more than talent. A good writer is lost.

Another writer is told that they do have talent; and lacking self-reflection (as some do), they decide that's all they need. They ignore hard work, persistence, consistency, and study, because those are for people who lack talent. They become insufferable. Not only that, they slowly find that they can't sell anything, because talent isn't enough in the long run. Another good writer is lost. (For a fictional example of this, read "Rough Draft" by judges Kevin J. Anderson and Rebecca Moesta in WotF Volume 31 (The Best Volume Ever)).

If someone tells you you're talented, thank them, but keep up the hard work, persistence, consistency, and study. If someone tells you you're not talented, tell them they don't know you, and keep up the hard work, persistence, consistency, and study.

Posted by: @martin-l-shoemaker

↑

If someone tells you you're talented, thank them, but keep up the hard work, persistence, consistency, and study. If someone tells you you're not talented, tell them they don't know you, and keep up the hard work, persistence, consistency, and study.

I like it.  

Back on the subject of Honorable Mentions, this oldie-but-goodie from Dave Farland is still alive and well on the dubya dubya dubya. Some folks may not have seen it yet. It's a good read for anyone trying to nail down why they only received an Honorable Mention or even a Silver.

https://mystorydoctor.com/why-you-only-got-an-honorable-mention/

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

Back on the subject of Honorable Mentions, this oldie-but-goodie from Dave Farland is still alive and well on the dubya dubya dubya. Some folks may not have seen it yet. It's a good read for anyone trying to nail down why they only received an Honorable Mention or even a Silver.

https://mystorydoctor.com/why-you-only-got-an-honorable-mention/

Thank you for the post. I missed that article. Good things to keep in mind.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

Back on the subject of Honorable Mentions, this oldie-but-goodie from Dave Farland is still alive and well on the dubya dubya dubya. Some folks may not have seen it yet. It's a good read for anyone trying to nail down why they only received an Honorable Mention or even a Silver.

https://mystorydoctor.com/why-you-only-got-an-honorable-mention/

Thanks for sharing this. Excellent insight and also nice to read how Dave considered HMs and the standard of writing they have achieved.

Posted by: @kent

↑

A prateworthy subject,

I have 15 HMs and 5 SHMs.

Take as given that Story is a description of a character and their attempt/s to achieve a goal despite obstacles.

HM is a complete and readable story within the rules of the contest (RWC can be incomplete or outside the rules of the contest).

SHM rises above HM when primary characters are properly rounded out (They have internal flaws that they must overcome to achieve the goal, they have history, they have relationships that define personality, social status, and economic status. In short, they are a fully formed individual.)

SHM rises above HM when events follow logically (Logic of the story milieu, and not necessarily our real-world logic).

SHM rises above HM when the plot transitions smoothly from one scene to the next without tripping-up the reader. Don't ever force the reader to think, believing that "intelligent" readers will understand. Story is not a college textbook. Readers are reading because they want to be entertained.

SHM rises above HM when every scene drives the story forward to its conclusion. This is about story shape. Libby Hawker mentions in her book "Take Off Your Pants!" that the story should be in the shape of an inverted triangle, constantly narrowing focus until the end. If stories include sections where scenes are set apart by time or space, each section should take this same inverted triangle shape.

SHM rises above HM when the obstacles and/or solutions to them involve twists.

SHM rises above HM when each scene is vividly impressed on the senses. The author needs to impart the physical world of the story upon the reader and do it in such a way that it is an organic part of the story rather than a laundry list of environmental attributes. Show the reader that the physical world has a function in the story, it affects the character in positive or negative ways; it is what showing is all about.

SHM rises above HM when the stakes of failure are demonstrably high. 

Any one of the above can lift a story that one Can read into a story that one Wants to read, which is ultimately the difference between HM and SHM.

Have fun,

Kent

This. Excellent summary of what makes a story rise above!

Posted by: @kent

↑

A prateworthy subject,

I have 15 HMs and 5 SHMs.

Any one of the above can lift a story that one Can read into a story that one Wants to read, which is ultimately the difference between HM and SHM.

Have fun,

Kent

Well explained.  Thank you.

I've no idea based on my own stories.

My SHM under Dave, looking back, I think is overlong, too repetitive, and therefore boring in parts. Maybe I think that because I've read it so many times, and it is the longest story I've received a mention for, but I think all other mentions I've received - HMs included - are better. But it has a relationship that progresses and heals through the story, so maybe that's what levelled it up under Dave in comparison to my HMs. It received HM from Jody.

I don't think I was going to submit the story I received my SHM from Jody for. I think it's one of my best stories I've submitted, but I didn't think it was suitable for WotF. Compared to my other mentions, the prose is probably more free-flowing and representative of the PoV character, so maybe that was worth an SHM in comparison to my HMs. It received HM under Dave.

What I think is my best all-round story, and one a WotF winner and editor thought had a finalist chance, received HM under Dave and Jody. Another WotF winner and editor - Dave himself - called it a brilliant story, and only made a couple of suggestions. But a comment with a rejection at another market could be a clue why that story hasn't achieved higher than HM - the speculative element could be replaced with a non-speculative element without massively changing the story.

I don't know based on stories I've critiqued either! I've read SHMs I thought were strong enough to be in with a finalist chance (and perhaps they were), but others I thought had a couple of flaws that made me surprised the story received SHM, and perhaps that HM seemed more likely.

Despite the rules and advice we can follow, that often works, I still think the difference between each tier can be subjective and random at times. Which is only natural.

Ironically I wrote something about this in the V40Q2 thread.

In summary, once you get to SHM, the rest of it is entirely subjective, imho. There's no difference in quality or - what seems to have cropped up in this thread, talent - between SHM, SF, finalist and winner. It's subjective.

Between HM and SHM, leaving aside anything subjective, the truth is I have no idea. I don't write HM quality stuff. HM level would mean there are flaws in it somewhere, and there are never any flaws in any of my stories.

If we're on the subject of 'talent' then that's a definition for you right there - 'talent' never has 'flaws' in their stories. By 'flaws' I mean 'logical/continuity errors', 'psychological errors' (i.e. the character wouldn't do that, or 'it doesn't make sense that someone would think or do that', or 'the character wouldn't do that because they would've thought of x or y' and so on).

Both of these flaws, actually, are the same. Reason? Because a story has characters in it, and the plot is driven by the decisions the characters make. Those decisions are psychological. If those characters and their decisions are not believable then the reason is because the psychology is wrong. Therefore, the continuity is wrong. Example: horror story trope in which the characters hear a noise in the basement and go and investigate. No, normal people would get the hell out of there. The best horror stories are those in which as soon as something bad happens it becomes a story about getting the hell out of there which is doomed to failure.

So the category HM means 'flaws'. SHM and above means 'no flaws' (just subjective opinion).

And in my opinion, all flaws are psychological. Get the psychology of the characters right, make sure every decision they make is psychologically believable, and let the characters decide the plot, the course of action, and you have a flawless story.

My two pence right there.