Benifits of RWC

I for one appreciate having the category, Harvey. It lets me know that my story had some redeeming qualities, greater than a straight Reject. (Picture an editor flinging a stack of paper off his desk in disgust.) What WotF does with this category is much more than I get from any of the dozens of magazine markets, and that's the reality of writing life.

Could they provide something more? Some personalized comments on every story? Of course they could—if they expanded the paid editorial staff by a factor of ten, reduced the size of the cash prizes, and depleted the corpus of the L. Ron Hubbard grant.

You’re in for a real shocker when you start submitting to actual markets outside the contest. 

It is one list of common RWC factors. I view it as "you almost made HM, but failed in one of these major area." Check your work and possibly enter again. The amount of entries they receive prevent any type of personal feedback at this level, or even the HM level. 

I could see moving the RWC list up a level to HM+ and checking a box. That would be extremely helpful to the writer and limit the quantity of stories this activity work take.

There is a nice personal feedback at the Semi-finalist achievement level, but that level also excludes the story from re-submit. 

This is the only market I know of that has RWC. Receiving a personal rejection from an editor is rare.

Posted by: @nova

↑

Why won't they say what's exactly wrong ?

Like just tick a box on the form or something?

*Thousands* of submissions per quarter. If assessing the piece and checking the boxes takes a minute per RWC, you're talking ~16+ hours of extra work on top of the hundreds of hours they're already doing, reading every submission.

Ballpark cost for an editor (and that's what they'd become, if they provided assessments on writing) is $100/h. Maybe if you ponied up $6k-12k a year they could do that?

Posted by: @ehonour

↑

reduced the size of the cash prizes

I feel that would be worth it.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

You’re in for a real shocker when you start submitting to actual markets outside the contest. 

I'm asking about something WOTF is doing.

Other markets, or my interaction with them, is irrelevant.

Posted by: @toddsjones

↑

It is one list of common RWC factors.

Thank you.

Posted by: @toddsjones

↑

There is a nice personal feedback at the Semi-finalist achievement level, but that level also excludes the story from re-submit. 

Good to know.

I didn't realise higher levels prevented resubmitting?

Semi finalist, finalist, win?

Posted by: @ease

↑

Maybe if you ponied up $6k-12k a year they could do that?

That would be about the prize amount?

The prize money, especially at this point, is meaningless to me.

There are easier ways.

It looks like it could be better spent on helping writers with some feedback.

Posted by: @ehonour

↑

I for one appreciate having the category, Harvey. It lets me know that my story had some redeeming qualities, greater than a straight Reject. (Picture an editor flinging a stack of paper off his desk in disgust.) What WotF does with this category is much more than I get from any of the dozens of magazine markets, and that's the reality of writing life.

Could they provide something more? Some personalized comments on every story? Of course they could—if they expanded the paid editorial staff by a factor of ten, reduced the size of the cash prizes, and depleted the corpus of the L. Ron Hubbard grant.

In case clarification is needed, plenty of WotF R's are good stories and some even get published at professional markets. An R doesn't mean a story has no redeeming qualities. Not that I'm qualified to speak on behalf of WotF slushers, but sometimes it might just be the first reader a story hits, as although there will be guidelines, everyone sees things in a different way. I've a story that first received HM and a couple of quarters later, R.

@alexh - absolutely. WotF, and many other markets, have "confessed" to rejecting many great stories. Fantastic stories. Unfortunately a story need not only be great, but also a good fit for the publication. It is absolutely possible for a story to be incredible but a bad fit, for any of a multitude of sometimes-difficult-to-discern reasons.

Posted by: @alexh

↑

An R doesn't mean a story has no redeeming qualities

Thanks.

Posted by: @ease

↑

It is absolutely possible for a story to be incredible but a bad fit, for any of a multitude of sometimes-difficult-to-discern reasons.

Another couple of questions.

How many options are on the list?

And how many problem points does a story need to receive RWC?

For example, about 10 things on the list, given out to stories with 1-3 of them , sounds ok.

However, 100 options on the list would confuse greatly.

I've never received one; my only R came before they adopted the RWC response. And I doubt it would have got the RWC; it was rejected because it was awful, not because it tripped on a technicality. But there is a stickied post explaining the RWC: 

Posted by: @karyenglish

↑

 

The current RWC categories are:

Failure to Launch - your opening went on too long, was too unfocused, or did not engage us

Didn't Stick the Landing - your ending was weak or didn't fit the story

Content issues - too much violence, sex, or profanity

No speculative element - your fantasy or sci-fi element was not present, introduced too late, or was insufficient

Your story was for children - We're OK with YA, but you sent us something for middle grade or lower

Politics and Religion - Your story depended too heavily on real-world politics, was better suited to a devotional market, or spent too much time trying to advance a particular religious or political agenda

And I believe that hitting any of the above, even just one, will yield you an RWC, although nothing is black and white.

Posted by: @ease

↑

And I believe that hitting any of the above, even just one, will yield you an RWC, although nothing is black and white.

Thanks.

I didn't realise that.

6 options, 1-6 may be present.

Also tells us the 6 most common issues/last hurdles people are getting caught by.

However, all 6 seem pretty obvious to me.

Although I do wonder how much I have already been breaking them.

Still thinking on it.

I do hope I get one, better than just a R, as it will give some hope.

I suspect the reason for it is, if there are possibly a growing number of entries (?), There are less chances of getting a non R.

Although that doesn't work, as everyone could still achieve HM.

Perhaps, if there is a rise, the quality is so low that most would only get a R, and thus some are getting a reward and some help with a RWC.

I know there was an explanation given, it's just more fun this way than actually looking it up.

Plus there may be several reasons.

So does this mean HM is so much better?

It would be good to know how many of the 6 things you need before you don't get RWC.

Is an HM meaning you had only 1-2 of them, or none?

RWC sounds like, that's it, just fix however many of the 6 you got, making HM sound like it has no problem at all.

Maybe they should just scrap the whole thing and just give us a percentage score.

Ha, RWC is a bit like a DM.

Your so bad, they actually give you some idea of how you really messed things up.

I still hope I get one.

I sent in a previous R, so a suggestion of what's wrong would be good.

We should all look at our past R and see if the list applies and if they may have been RWC.

Just an idea.

@nova Judges have said that HM are given to the top 10% of entries. It's a rough estimate, and giving a percentage on how bad a story is beyond that is not going to be helpful. How much worse is a story with white room syndrome than one with flat characters? Not to mention how much time it would take the judges to give such a score. HM doesn't mean it has x number of flaws, just that it held the judge's attention enough that they read the entire story through. This means no distractions from bad grammar, or plot holes that throw people out, or something that doesn't bore them to tears

It sounds like the feedback you're wanting is stuff you can get by swapping stories with a beta reader, or by paying an editor. 

Posted by: @nova

↑

It would be good to know how many of the 6 things you need before you don't get RWC.

If all the mistakes made come under that list (i.e., there are zero other mistakes), regardless of how many of them, I'm pretty sure the result is an RWC. An R is more likely to indicate that the "disqualifying" mistake(s) was not caught under than umbrella. 

If you would like to send me the first ~450 words of one of your stories, I'd be happy to hazard a guess at what earned you the R and/or why it wasn't an RWC.

Posted by: @reigheena

↑

@nova Judges have said that HM are given to the top 10% of entries. It's a rough estimate, and giving a percentage on how bad a story is beyond that is not going to be helpful. How much worse is a story with white room syndrome than one with flat characters? Not to mention how much time it would take the judges to give such a score. HM doesn't mean it has x number of flaws, just that it held the judge's attention enough that they read the entire story through. This means no distractions from bad grammar, or plot holes that throw people out, or something that doesn't bore them to tears

It sounds like the feedback you're wanting is stuff you can get by swapping stories with a beta reader, or by paying an editor. 

I think under the previous coordinating judge HMs were read all the way through, but I asked Jody Lynn Nye if this was the case and she said no. According to her, HM, and even SHM, does not guarantee your story was read all the way through. 

Posted by: @kz_richards

↑

According to her, HM, and even SHM, does not guarantee your story was read all the way through. 

That's both shocking and good to know.

Posted by: @ease

↑

If you would like to send me the first ~450 words of one of your stories, I'd be happy to hazard a guess at what earned you the R and/or why it wasn't an RWC.

Thanks.

I'll try to get to that.

Posted by: @ease

↑

If all the mistakes made come under that list (i.e., there are zero other mistakes), regardless of how many of them, I'm pretty sure the result is an RWC. An R is more likely to indicate that the "disqualifying" mistake(s) was not caught under than umbrella. 

So a HM shouldn't have many mistakes.

None of the 6, and nothing like a R either?

I guess there can be more good stories than just those with higher wins.

Sounding like HM up is the cream, not above HM.

Especially if HM isn't just that they read it through.

More that they saw it was top stuff, but just others ended up beating it, as there are only so many spots.

Except then there's SHM.

Perhaps HM is the R of the top stories.

Posted by: @reigheena

↑

Judges have said that HM are given to the top 10% of entries.

Good to know.

I'm in the 10%, I'm in the 10%..,

Posted by: @kz_richards

↑

I think under the previous coordinating judge HMs were read all the way through, but I asked Jody Lynn Nye if this was the case and she said no. According to her, HM, and even SHM, does not guarantee your story was read all the way through. 

That is interesting. I can understand that slush readers (first readers) would hand out R and RWC, and maybe even mark HMs to help with the quantity of submissions. The next level, could be senior slush readers now since there are so many submissions, but I'm not sure there is one. By the time it gets to Jody, I would assume the stories area some silver honorable mentions that have potential and semi-finalist, then Jody confirms SHM or SF rating and selects finalist to go to the judges.

@kz_richards Ah, I had old information. Thanks for letting me know. 

@nova Since you seem to be confused, the results you can get are in order of desirability:

• Finalist - the top 8 stories of the quarter. Of these, 3 will be chosen as winners after you get the first call.
• Semi-finalist - Essentially the final round of judging before choosing the finalists. Stories that reach this level receive an edit letter from the judge, and because of that are not eligible for resubmission to the contest. Some semi-finalists have reported that their feedback was essentially "This was an excellent story. The finalists just beat it by a hair." Numbers put this at roughly the top .5% of stories
• Silver Honorable Mention - Essentially, your story survived a second pass from the judge, or Jody wants to recognize that this is a resubmitted HM that has improved. Judging from numbers, I'd say these represent roughly the top 3% of stories.
• Honorable Mention - roughly, the top 10% of stories. Stories that land here may be less about having mistakes and more about not executing well enough. (good, but not excellent)
• Rejection with Comments - "your story showed promise, but was held back by one or more issues mentioned in the letter." Essentially, we want you to keep trying. Look at these common problems and get back to us. 
• Rejection - The story needs work, and there are too many ways for the reader to be bumped out that it's impossible to numerate them in a timely way to be helpful. Classes, beta readers, or even fresh eyes can help you spot your problems. Revision can bump up a story from rejection to Honorable Mention and higher. I've done it multiple times. In a very few cases, a rejection can find a home elsewhere, unrevised, because of niche interests. 
• Disqualification - you did not follow the rules and so the story wasn't even considered.

I'll tell ya, those last few percentage points can be brutal to get into. 

Perfect summary! My only quibble, with the RwC:

Essentially, we want you to keep trying. Look at these common problems and get back to us. 

For all results, even R and DQ, they want you to keep trying and keep submitting. And 'get back to us' should not be understood as 'revise and resubmit this same story.' In the past, they were very amenable to resubmits, and while they are still allowed (and still sort-of encouraged?) I've noticed that resubmits generally really struggle compared to first-time submissions. I've seen plenty of SHMs and HMs get Rs after revision and resubmission, and rarely seen the inverse. I strongly advise everyone to only resubmit a story if you really have no other eligible stories to submit by the end of the quarter.

Posted by: @nova

↑

I'm in the 10%, I'm in the 10%..,

 

Me too! Welcome to the club!  

For me, there is no difference between an R and an RWC. And since you really get no direction at all from the RWC bullet points that help identify which areas need help, both results still mean exactly the same thing: "This story needs a lot of work."

At this point in my writing career (and contest submissions), anything less than a Semi-Finalist is an R for me. I have enough HM's hanging on my wall.

Posted by: @reigheena

↑

Since you seem to be confused

"Never confused, never confused."

(Did try to double check that, can't find it, probably should watch it again.)

But it's a handy list.

Oddly, if they don't want to mark a paper or a few words of feed back because of time costs, how long may it take filling out some unknown number of HM certificates?

Unless there are only a preset number sent out, which sounds dodgy, as anyone should be able to get one.

So the not enough time thing doesn't add up.

I wonder if physical submissions could help?

I think you can send an envelope for return?

I could see readers doodling or scribbling on it if inclined.

Who knows what may come back?

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

"This story needs a lot of work."

It may be only one of the points holding a RWC back.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

I have enough HM's hanging on my wall.

Then "stop writing crap." - Ellison.

Says me.

While good for new people, there's a risk most will get one RWC, then never get another, as they use the list to check each submission.

The stuff seems pretty logical, so I wonder how many will slip up.

Apparently there's a need though.

Oddly, if they don't want to mark a paper or a few words of feed back because of time costs, how long may it take filling out some unknown number of HM certificates?

Unless there are only a preset number sent out, which sounds dodgy, as anyone should be able to get one.

So the not enough time thing doesn't add up.

I wonder if physical submissions could help?

The number isn't unknown. You can count them on the blog each quarter. I believe there's around 400 HM/SHM now. Thus, 400 certificates signed by two people every three months. Entirely doable. Then they get stuffed in large envelopes and mailed. Each stamp is around $2, the paper and envelope could be around $1. So $400 x 3 x 4 = $4800 per year. That's how much the contest spends sending out kindly rejection certificates. 

And it's free to enter...

There isn't a preset number, but from what I understand 10% - 15% of the stories are HM quality. That's out of the contest's control. I'm sure if 90% of stories were HM quality they'd give out 90% HMs and spend even more mailing certificates. Yes, anyone should (and is) able to get one - but there are certain requirements for this market. Sometimes, when those requirements aren't met, an RWC is given to guide the author toward hitting the requirement on the next submission. 

Let's say there's 400 RWC as well (Just picking the same # as above). Who would email 400 people with the individual feedback that each slush reader would now be required to complete? The contest administrator (or an intern, perhaps). What happens when 400 people get individual feedback telling them more precisely why their story didn't fit this market? 

They disagree. 

Let's say only 25% take the time to disagree with a reply. That's 100 conversations via e-mail for someone. Likely having to explain the entire system, the slush readers, and why they listed a particular item as the reason for the RWC (failure to launch, not enough spec, didn't stick the landing) which would only incite the author further. "I had a spec element on page 3, didn't they read that far?" and so on. 

This just isn't possible (plus the added time for the slush readers which would push the results back even further). Thus, the RWC list was created for an author to review and reflect and attempt to find why the story was returned from this market.

Authors have blind spots. Especially in their own writing. So they may not recognize when in the first two pages: the character wakes up, brushes their teeth, goes downstairs, makes breakfast, then steps out into a place not Kansas anymore was a failure to launch. All that stuff was interesting to them or they wouldn't have written it. 

The heroes journey tells us to start in the ordinary world, so.

A possible solution is to have someone else read the story after the RWC. Heck, give them the list and see if they can match what may have held the story back. They might spot a flaw, they might not. If not, please trust that one of the readers saw what they believed was a reason the story wasn't a fit for the market they have been trained to slush read for. 

If it happens to you, write another story (try, try again) and submit. Read the previous volumes, write another story and submit. Read widely, write another story and submit. 

I won on my 32nd try. Others have higher numbers. I believe Preston was #48. 

Some simply walk away, they submit to other markets, or perhaps stop writing all together. 

Free will is a beautiful thing. The choice is entirely yours.

Posted by: @nova

↑

While good for new people, there's a risk most will get one RWC, then never get another, as they use the list to check each submission.

The stuff seems pretty logical, so I wonder how many will slip up.

Apparently there's a need though.

It seems you'd like the contest, and perhaps other publishers in general, to perform a role for you that is easily done by peer reviews and critique feedback. That's not how story submissions work. Very rarely do editors and publishers provide feedback on the stories you send them.

If you're lucky, you'll get a helpful personal rejection back from an editor, but only if they feel it's a good enough story to comment on. If your story earns a Semi-Finalist certificate in this contest, you'll also get some helpful feedback.

I suggest you find a trusted group of peers and have them read and critique your stories before sending them to publishers. Given the thousands of entries the contest receives every quarter, it's unrealistic to expect them to provide helpful feedback for every story they receive. It's just not gonna happen. You need to do that work up front ahead of time before submitting.

Also, I don't appreciate your implication that the stories I'm writing are crap. That's a very unprofessional and discourteous thing to tell a fellow writer, especially in this forum.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

At this point in my writing career (and contest submissions), anything less than a Semi-Finalist is an R for me. I have enough HM's hanging on my wall.

I agree and disagree with this sentiment. I believe in celebrating the small wins of getting something above a straight R. However, at the end of the day, SHM and HM are still a no. When I've mentioned my HM in my cover letter, it causes confusion instead of being a boon. So, I don't even mention it. 

Posted by: @tj_knight

↑

Free will is a beautiful thing. The choice is entirely yours.

My studies suggest otherwise.

Good write up.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

Also, I don't appreciate your implication that the stories I'm writing are crap. That's a very unprofessional and discourteous thing to tell a fellow writer, especially in this forum.

Ah, we're all writing carp.

Don't take it personally.

Posted by: @reigheena

↑

When I've mentioned my HM in my cover letter, it causes confusion instead of being a boon. So, I don't even mention it. 

Very good info.

Is that the same with SHM?

Anyone else have any experiences like this?

Posted by: @reigheena

↑

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

At this point in my writing career (and contest submissions), anything less than a Semi-Finalist is an R for me. I have enough HM's hanging on my wall.

I agree and disagree with this sentiment. I believe in celebrating the small wins of getting something above a straight R. However, at the end of the day, SHM and HM are still a no. When I've mentioned my HM in my cover letter, it causes confusion instead of being a boon. So, I don't even mention it. 

 

I also disagree. Top 10% (out of thousands) is a phenomenal achievement, if not a tangibly rewarding one. The first HM I got was literally the decider between me ever writing again or not. And while I was a little heart-broken with every subsequent HM, I was also (and still am) very proud. And then the SHMs! Top 2%! You know how often I've been in the top 2% of any cohort? Like never, other than in WotF! Unless someone's been secretly assessing 'ability to annoy' without sharing the results with me (ignoring my wife, who always gives me the First Place medal in that competition).

Posted by: @nova

↑

Is that the same with SHM?

Anyone else have any experiences like this?

No one ever commented on the SHMs mentioned in my cover letters, or my win, to be honest. No confusion, no recognition.

Posted by: @reigheena

↑

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

At this point in my writing career (and contest submissions), anything less than a Semi-Finalist is an R for me. I have enough HM's hanging on my wall.

I agree and disagree with this sentiment. I believe in celebrating the small wins of getting something above a straight R. However, at the end of the day, SHM and HM are still a no. When I've mentioned my HM in my cover letter, it causes confusion instead of being a boon. So, I don't even mention it. 

 

I also don’t mention my certificates. I wouldn’t bring up making it to the top 10% or 3% in any other market, so it doesn’t make sense. A few times I have mentioned my finalist, but usually only in my bio. 

Posted by: @kz_richards

↑

A few times I have mentioned my finalist, but usually only in my bio. 

Maybe you should try, depending on your current sales results.

DQ?

"You had one job!"

Any goss?

May help other writers avoid a pitfall.

Posted by: @nova

↑

Posted by: @kz_richards

↑

A few times I have mentioned my finalist, but usually only in my bio. 

Maybe you should try, depending on your current sales results.

DQ?

"You had one job!"

Any goss?

May help other writers avoid a pitfall.

 

 

 

My DQ was because my document had my name on it. I had deleted it, but unfortunately my computer enabled tracked changes at some point during my final edits, and on their end they saw a marked up nightmare. This was invisible on my end (computer was glitching in all kinds of fun ways leading up to this) but when I downloaded my submission on my new computer I could see the tracked changes. Super bummer.