Discussion: Q2 Volume 40

Posted by: @pegeen

↑

what are the 450's I see mentioned?

If someone is offering to look at a 450, they are willing to critique the first 450 words (about 2 pages) of your manuscript. There is a forum thread here for finding people to exchange that, in addition to @tj_knight and @ease who have offered. 

Posted by: @reigheena

↑

Personally, I go for a mix of new and revised stories. I have learned that my process involves a LOT of revision. It's only in the 3rd draft that I usually figure out what I was trying to say in the first place. So, if I believe in a story, and feel I can fix it, I will always leave that door open.

I utilize the same approach. I try not to over edit, but since I'm a quasi-pantser I kind-of have to.

Huh. A bit bummed here, because I reworked an HM with quite a few changes to make it tighter and better ... and got an RWC. Went from 6500 words down to 5400. Perhaps that adds to @reigheena's datum that longer is better? (I don't think that's true; just joking.)

I've been going through the RWC topics and I can't see where any of them particularly apply to this story. But I'll also do a detailed look at the difference between the HM version and RWC version. Because... I am dedicated to writing and to improving. One setback makes not a career end. Five HMs and two RWCs is still a great ratio. (I'm not talking about the "oops" where I left my name on the story...)

Still smiling, and still writing.

Posted by: @ehonour

↑

Five HMs and two RWCs is still a great ratio. 

Still smiling, and still writing.

Five HMs is impressive. Great that you so positive. 

Just keep writing.  And smiles are great too.

NOTE: My wife says I don't smile enough. I tell her it takes more muscles to smile, but I've never found an accurate number of how many muscles its takes. Luckily she never pressed me for the number.  

Congratulations to all those who placed and got HM and SHMs, well done!

My Q2 submission was in my opinion the best story I've written, it was a lot of fun to write and I strengthened several areas of my craft doing it, but sadly it got a Rejection. I'm disappointed because my previous two subs got RWCs and the ones before that Rejections, yet this story was better to me. I thought I was improving and maybe had a slight chance at an HM this time.

But maybe I'm just a bad judge of my own work.

So I read through the unwritten rules post by @martin-l-shoemaker and realised that the violence in the story may have fallen foul of the PG-13 rule. I'm not sure though.

I've submitted the story to the "Zombies Need Brains" magazine and just moved on.

I sub'd a different type of story for Q3, so maybe that will do better. No idea what I'll sub for Q4.

Time for an hour of Skyrim now to relax. Back to writing tomorrow morning.

Congrats to all who entered!

@pmg do you have more violence than any story in V37-V39? If so, you likely have too much. Happy to take a look if you want? I've studied the recent volumes pretty hard.

Bit of a new guy question, so apologies if I'm asking this in the wrong space. I assume some of the higher placing submissions get feedback. Is this reserved for only a specific caliber of entries?

@rhiggs Semi Finalists get feedback (but you can’t re-enter that piece). RWC gets a form note with a list of common errors that this story falls under.

@wahlquistj Thanks!

Posted by: @toddjones

↑

Posted by: @bethpowers

↑

HM for me on a reworked SHM, which is a disappointing direction to go...

But don't worry, I like this story too much not to have other plans for it  

That happened to me last year. I thought I made the story better, and I might have, but WotF didn't think so.  Send the story out to another market.

 

The funny thing about this one was that the SHM was a revision of an R. I decided last minute to revise and resubmit--I reworked it in a few days and submitted it without even reading through it (not something I normally do!). When I read it later on, it had some typos and continuity issues, but it received a SHM that quarter, so I thought I would try it one more time! This time around, I spent some time on the revisions and read through it (more than once!) before I submitted it, but it was an HM for Q2. I would be curious to know what made that SHM version stand out a little more than the others, but all three versions were pushing the contest word limit, so it's now destined for longer (and probably novel-shaped) things  

Posted by: @bethpowers

↑

Posted by: @toddjones

↑

Posted by: @bethpowers

↑

HM for me on a reworked SHM, which is a disappointing direction to go...

But don't worry, I like this story too much not to have other plans for it  

That happened to me last year. I thought I made the story better, and I might have, but WotF didn't think so.  Send the story out to another market.

 

 

The funny thing about this one was that the SHM was a revision of an R. I decided last minute to revise and resubmit--I reworked it in a few days and submitted it without even reading through it (not something I normally do!). When I read it later on, it had some typos and continuity issues, but it received a SHM that quarter, so I thought I would try it one more time! This time around, I spent some time on the revisions and read through it (more than once!) before I submitted it, but it was an HM for Q2. I would be curious to know what made that SHM version stand out a little more than the others, but all three versions were pushing the contest word limit, so it's now destined for longer (and probably novel-shaped) things  

 

One possibility is what quality of entries was it up against? In other words your HM may very well be much improved over your SHM and the only difference is what the other entries were like. At any rate, good luck with your novel project,

[results flew into inboxes just as a smoke signal was detected]

[Rs, RWCs, HMs, SHMs, and SFs results have been posted]

[but what of the top 8?]

[when will we know who the finalists are?]

[sympathy twitches and a fresh batch of scones for all 8 lone warriors]

[may your wait not be too much longer...]

[three will be going to Hollywood!]

[plus, who knows... perhaps a published finalist?]

@pmg Sometimes a story is good but maybe not a good fit for every market.  BTW, I also play Skyrim to relax -- and Pokerstars (with the free chips).

@toddjones

@bethpowers

Just curious, but is it possible those original and reworked stories were reviewed by Dave Farland and Kary? Different editors, I mean. One person thought one way about it, then it was resubbed to a different person who felt differently.

@morgan-broadhead Mine were just after David.  I think I edited too much and lost a bit of the speculative.  WotF isn't a good market for sword & no speculative sorcery.  So, I take full blame for the downgrade. (Then again, who else's fault could it have been other than the writer not writer the best story ever.) 

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

@toddjones

@bethpowers

Just curious, but is it possible those original and reworked stories were reviewed by Dave Farland and Kary? Different editors, I mean. One person thought one way about it, then it was resubbed to a different person who felt differently.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

But beyond that... Have you ever read a story one time, and it didn't work for you, but you tried again later and liked it? It happens to judges and slush readers, too.

Judging and slush reading for the Contest are inherently subjective just like every other market. The results aren't objective, mechanical, repeatable measurements. They're the best judgment that reader can make at that moment. Just like any other market.

This is frustrating. Believe me, I understand. But it's simply unavoidable--unless you give up on submitting at all.

And the variability will likely increase. At this year's gala, they announced that they're adding new slush readers (though they haven't yet announced names). Kary's overloaded, especially since she's finishing Dave's Runelords series. Whoever the new readers are, they're going to have to learn the Contest's standards; and they'll inevitably bring different perspectives to the reading.

There's a phenomenon called rejectomancy: trying to "read the tea leaves" of a rejection. To a degree, it's unavoidable, especially with the tiered results of the Contest--and more so now with RWC. And it's especially understandable if you edit and resubmit (a habit I never had, I just sent it to the next market and wrote another story): you want to know how to improve this story. But too much rejectomancy can drive you crazy. Sometimes it's just the wrong fit of this story for this editor/slusher at this market at this time. Sometimes editing it can make it subjectively worse instead of better.

My advice... Think on the story. Think on the rejection. Try to learn something. If you get a great idea that will make the story better in your opinion, then write that. But otherwise, write another story and send this one to a new market. Don't let a rejection drive you crazy (crazier).

My Clarkesworld story "Today I Am Paul" has been reprinted in four Year's Best collections. It has been translated into eight languages. It has appeared in a college ethics textbook and lectures. I've lost track of how many places it has been reprinted. It received a Nebula nomination and the Washington Science Fiction Association Small Press Award.

Before I sent it to Clarkesworld, I sent it to Asimov's (my dream market). They rejected it in under two hours.

It's all subjective.

One of the things I like most about the contest, and I may have mentioned this on one of my blog posts or recent interviews, is its style. When Ease returned my winner, he commented that it "felt" like a WotF story. He could identify this from reading the recent volumes, and/or the older ones, but I believe it's from 37 and 38. Different editor - same general style.

Way back in 2011 when Joni first called me I asked her, "Is Trina Phillips a finalist?" What a wacky thing to ask, right? I mean, out of all the submissions... "How did you know?" Was her reply. I said it was because I read/critiqued Trina's story and it felt like a WotF story. That was under KD Wentworth, who studied under AJ, who took the reins from Dave, who'd taken the reins from AJ... What I'm getting at is, the judges and the slushers know this market. It's why they're offered the job.

This is why you may get an RWC on a terrific story. It's just better suited for, say, Analog, etc. Plenty of folks have gotten straight Rs here, subbed elsewhere, pro or semi-pro, didn't change a single word - and sold.

This, too, I believe is one of the answers to the differences between an HM and a SHM, and why I kept getting Silvers toward the end. I was writing contest-like stories with a stronger this-market feel.

Now, a great story is a great story, but in the general sense, all things story being equal, the difference between a SHM and an HM might also be *feel*.

Silvers are possible finalists, stories that got a closer, or second look. I don't know how Jody does it, but Dave would winnow and winnow. He'd set stories aside that he wanted to scrutinize. I bet he read a few pages and thought, yup, that feels like a WotF story. Then he had to dig into what hadn't already won in Q1, Q2, etc. And not duplicate genres.

In my first SF crit he came right out and said he had to choose between two ship-in-space stories. Mine had a slight flaw, the other, not so much. He bumped mine down to SF. Now, he probably had even more ship-in-space stories. The 3rd and 4th likely got silvers. Maybe those had two slight flaws ("Flaws" being the subjective opinion of the current judge).

It's always tough when results are lower than hopes and expectations. Believe me, I've been there literally dozens of times. Martin gives himself 5 minutes to rant. I give myself an overnight. I sleep on my disappointments. Then we get back on the proverbial horse, and try to improve for the next time.

I second the advice to write fresh stories each quarter. If I can easily identify something that needs fixing, then I will revise my stories before sending to the next market. Other times, I find more problems than are worth fixing, and that story would need a full rewrite not worth the time. 

The biggest thing that has helped me to improve is to maintain the cycle of read, write, repeat. Read published stories, write my own stories, and do that over and over. By the time results come around for WotF, I have already learned so much that I can see problems with my submission that were invisible to me at the time (even if someone pointed them out to me before!).

In terms of rejectomancy, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the huge majority of stories are not read in their entirety. Watching the Slush is Alive was very eye-opening. Slush readers will read until they think it has potential or know for sure it doesn’t. I would guess Jody stops reading when she knows it’s not a winning piece. The reason she stopped could be a combination of so many things. Figuring out the “why” of a particular story is probably less helpful than just trying to improve overall. I know I can sense when I’ve unlocked new understanding. I was disappointed in my HM this time around, but I guessed it was coming based on things I’ve learned since I wrote the story. My goal is to keep learning and improving regardless of rejections along the way. 

Congratulations to everyone who participated this quarter! Every story written and submitted is a success in what you gain from it. Thanks also to everyone in this forum and for the positive, supportive atmosphere you provide. I’m happy to share this journey with all of you, no matter how long it takes. 

(And fingers crossed for you finalists waiting for results!)

Posted by: @tj_knight

↑

This is why you may get an RWC on a terrific story. It's just better suited for, say, Analog, etc. Plenty of folks have gotten straight Rs here, subbed elsewhere, pro or semi-pro, didn't change a single word - and sold.

Dustin - thanks for this observation.  My Q2 was a RWC and I didn't think any of the specific 'comments' applied (I could be wrong) but the fact that it just might not be a 'WOTF' story certainly feels better.   Sending it to Analog!  

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

@toddjones

@bethpowers

Just curious, but is it possible those original and reworked stories were reviewed by Dave Farland and Kary? Different editors, I mean. One person thought one way about it, then it was resubbed to a different person who felt differently.

My original R for the story was from Kary/Dave, but the SHM and HM were both from Kary/Jody.

I don't think rejectomancy has to be entirely negative--I think the trick is that it's okay to think about the whys and the why nots, but not to get hung up on them. I like to look for patterns in things, so I track a bunch of data related to submissions, but I have too many rejections at this point to get bogged down by them! But I also think that it's useful to think about what makes a story work, and not just look for its flaws. I know I'll never really know why that one version did better than the others in the contest--and maybe it had nothing to do with the story itself--but I think it's interesting to consider what might have made it stand out (especially when I know there were quite a few technical errors to hold it back). But it won't stop me from revising it into something else or writing my next story for the contest

I've gone through phases of only writing new stories for the contest and other phases of reworking old stories, and I think both are valuable--left to my own devices, I'm not a person who revises endlessly, so revising a story for the contest pushes me to think about how to improve a story differently than writing a new one would. Usually it comes down to which story I believe in the most at the moment, and that's the one I submit!

Ah yes - REJECTOMANCY - that demon sorcerer inside your brain who keeps asking, "Is it the story or just the editor? The story or the editor? The story or the editor?"

It's been rejected by eight different markets now. Do I keep sending it on to someone new or nail it in a pine box and cover it over with dirt?

The story or the editor...

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

The story or the editor...

Haha, I wish I had that wondering. I know exactly what's at fault every time: me!

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

Just curious, but is it possible those original and reworked stories were reviewed by Dave Farland and Kary? Different editors, I mean. One person thought one way about it, then it was resubbed to a different person who felt differently.

Distinct possibility with mine, too, Morgan. Reasons why a truly Improved HM might fall to an RWC, that have nothing to do with whether the story is actually better or not:

- Different editor

- Different slush reader

- Different competition

- Different editorial goals for the issue

I'll hang my hat on these, rather than trying to beat myself up about it.

Posted by: @ease

↑

Haha, I wish I had that wondering. I know exactly what's at fault every time: me!

It's always the writer's fault. Good or bad. But, there can still be another market that likes the way the writer faulted the story. So my advice to writers is to note just submit to one market. Finding the right market for a story is a whole other problem.

I struggle with rejectomancy! I sent out a SHM to Cast of Wonders, received a nice personal rejection with some notes that I could understand but didn’t know how to correct. I spent a year struggling to revise and rewrite the story. None of my edits seemed to fit. Something felt off.

This past month I gave up and sent it to my critique group. They said “don’t change it! We love it!”… so now I’m hunting markets again. 

Got my result for Q2 volume 40:

Posted by: @wahlquistj

↑

I struggle with rejectomancy! I sent out a SHM to Cast of Wonders, received a nice personal rejection with some notes that I could understand but didn’t know how to correct. I spent a year struggling to revise and rewrite the story. None of my edits seemed to fit. Something felt off.

This past month I gave up and sent it to my critique group. They said “don’t change it! We love it!”… so now I’m hunting markets again.

Feedback can sometimes be correct for the reader, but wrong for the writer. That's something I've learned--I've had suggestions of changes to make that I understood, and maybe even agreed with on some level, but which I chose not to apply because I felt it would too fundamentally change either what the story was, or how the story felt. The story will never be what that reader would have liked it to be, but it remains closer to what I wanted it to be.

Posted by: @crlisle

↑

Got my result for Q2 volume 40:

Hang in there. Put some music on, get your favorite keyboard out, and start writing.

Just keep writing.