Future Spoils

I haven't seen one for Volume 37 yet, but we could talk about it it here! (We could talk about any of them here, arguably.)

There have been comments/discussions on individual stories here and there, but the advice from Wulf in his Super Secrets thread applies to many stories in recent volumes, especially Wulf's story! There are great insights in that thread from other forum members too, including other winners of the contest like Andy Dibble, Brittany Rainsdon, Leah Ning, Preston Dennett and M. Elizabeth Ticknor. It's basically a goldmine in there.

I think it'd be great to have a thread that picks out what we think made a story a winner, with a focus on the positive.

The Widow's Might (And remember, here there be spoilers!)

I was reading some in the latest WotF volume, trying to see what made the stories winning stories. I'm not trying to be snarky or negative, but The Widow's Might stumps me. Setting is interesting, prose is good, but the structure reads to me like a series of try/succeed cycles. Try/succeed cycles can work if their success brings further complications, but these don't. At least, not that I'm seeing. What am I missing?

@babooher So for me I interpreted the story almost as a horror. Instead of try/fail cycles it's really about MC's character arc as she goes from being a helpless widow, one who doesn't want to hurt others too severely, to becoming an executer of vigilante justice. The reason I say horror is because sure right now she's somewhat in the right, but it's scary to think what may be viewed as worthy of punishment in the future and in general what would happen if their group becomes corrupt. 

At every step MC had the opportunity not to exact revenge, to try to change the process, and each time you see her veer further and further away from empathy and from who she once was.

In real life, there are often debates about the prison system-- if it should serve merely as a tool for punishment or for rehabilitation. If we don't agree with the justice system can we enact our own and where do we draw the line? Very political and timely questions given cases in the USA like the Rittenhouse trial and shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. At least that was how I interpreted this story. It was interesting to read such a potentially dark story in a wotf volume. 

A side detail I really liked was about pockets , I'm still peeved at how hard it is to find skirts/dresses with pockets  

@scribblesatdusk Awesome. And thanks for the perspective. I kept thinking I know this is a winner, so what am I not seeing? Your comment really helped.

@babooher I'll just counter to say I'm not sure that was the intent of the author. I think you're supposed to root for the MC, who's really more an antagonist/antihero (? I'm not really sure) than a hero, and those part of the tea club. It's also steampunk, which I'm not sure how much of that I've seen in wotf, and displayed a good deal of dry humor too. 

I like this idea. Here's my two cents. I've made a few posts similar to this before, but here it is again.

Most winning stories have these elements.

1. Polished Prose. Accessible readable writing. A few mis-spelled words are not a problem, but you must be able to write creatively and correctly.

2. Unique, original, creative, high concept trope. Please make your story interesting! Perhaps the most important element of all.

3. Strong hook. The judges can tell in the first few pages (or even the first paragraph) whether it's going to be a good story. En media res! Start with the action! Get right to the conflict asap.

4. Satisfying ending. So important! Tie up those loose endings. You must stick the landing. 

5. Interesting, vivid, settings with colors, smells, textures.

6. Well-drawn complex realistic characters who have a catharsis and change by the end of the story. WOTF also loves unique characters, a phoenix, a dryad, an AI -- a character off the beaten path. 

7. A good plot with suspense and action and try/fail cycles and unexpected and surprising twists and turns. (This is not always present though...some are perhaps better described as adventure stories with a series of events, or mood pieces, and can be very entertaining without the traditional try/fail suspense structure.)

8. Emotion! Make your reader cry. Make them laugh. Make them gasp with wonder. Nothing is more boring than a dry parched story without emotion.

9. Family (or friends.) Look at the stories and you will see how prominent relationships are. 

10. Dialogue. Good, snappy repartee!

These are I think the main ingredients to any successful story. Pick any story in any volume, and I wager that you will see at least 7 or 8 of these prominently displayed.  Some might not be terribly original, but they are so well done, they win. Some might be a bit clunky in execution but the trope was incredibly creative. Also, try to keep your story short. WOTF favors shorter stories. The latest volume doesn't have a single novelette or novella in it. ALL were 25 pages or less. It's harder, I think, to win with a longer story. It can be done, but it has to be darn good! If you are earning HMs or higher, you are already there. You made the second round. Don't give up. If you aren't placing in the contest (HM, SHM, SF, F), chances are your stories are missing some of the above elements. Just don't give up. That's the most important ingredient of all. Persist! You can win this contest. 

What struck me about Vol 37 is that over half the winning stories are in first person. That's consistent with publishing industry trends, but puts to rest that particular concern which I've seen pop up many times on the forum.

I don’t read them except for a very few. 

@dommichaels that doesn’t seem to be unique with this volume. Seems to be pretty consistent in recent years that 1st person is around half, if not more.

Seems like many of the prominent judges encourage 3rd person limited, but it doesn’t seem choosing 1st will reduce your chances, statistically. 

@zeeteebeez I agree. What I would say is, if some of the judges are saying don't do first person but obviously are willing to accept first person, then what makes these first person stories so good that they clear the extra hurdle? Or are the judges saying that first person is perfectly acceptable but a lot of people just don't do it well? Both could be true or it could be something else. I know I generally don't like first person point of view, but one of my favorite books is written in first person. I think that shows the problem isn't first person POV, it's the way too many writers handle it.

Posted by: @babooher

@zeeteebeez I agree. What I would say is, if some of the judges are saying don't do first person but obviously are willing to accept first person, then what makes these first person stories so good that they clear the extra hurdle? Or are the judges saying that first person is perfectly acceptable but a lot of people just don't do it well? Both could be true or it could be something else. I know I generally don't like first person point of view, but one of my favorite books is written in first person. I think that shows the problem isn't first person POV, it's the way too many writers handle it.

 

I'd say that's a fair observation. For every "rule" out there, there's a published story that has broken it. During drafting, I don't even think about "rules." I just write the way the story demands to be written. Some stories just feel better written in 1st or 3rd (I've never written a story in 2nd). Some stories just feel better written in past or present. In the end, it all comes down to execution. The stories that win are the stories that grab your attention and make you hold on tight all the way through, despite whatever "rules" they might be breaking.

There’s definitely an element of skill involved. Even more so with second person. I would mentally rephrase “don’t do this” to “don’t do this unless you understand why it’s really difficult and are sure you can do it well”. I’d suspect there are lots of first person entries that get rejections, too.

@morgan-broadhead yes, you just have to understand the reason for your POV choice.

IMO 1st can provide a more immediate reader connection to the MC. This is of course helpful in a short story. Perhaps your MC is not immediately likable. In that case 1st may help just a bit. For me, I get into the characters voice better if I’m in 1st. 3rd feels stale to me often.

BUT, since the judges have expressed their preference, I would say writing in a close 3rd limited should be your go-to, if you can make it work. 

Posted by: @babooher

@zeeteebeez I agree. What I would say is, if some of the judges are saying don't do first person but obviously are willing to accept first person, then what makes these first person stories so good that they clear the extra hurdle? Or are the judges saying that first person is perfectly acceptable but a lot of people just don't do it well? Both could be true or it could be something else. I know I generally don't like first person point of view, but one of my favorite books is written in first person. I think that shows the problem isn't first person POV, it's the way too many writers handle it.

 

No, I can put your question to bed, babooher, and have done so in the Forum before. The three instructors at my Volume 35 WotF workshop—David Farland, Scott Card, and Tim Powers—devoted an hour as to why you should only write in third person, past tense. Scott Card spoke extensively on why it’s the only true way to tell a story. All three of them stated they have a strong dislike for first person stories. Scott Card then said he recognized some first person stories do make it into the anthology, and he said that’s because they have to judge what they have been given and do their best to judge all fairly based on their merits. And then he hammered down again that third person past tense is the only true way to tell a story. That they said all of this is a fact.

Then why are many first person stories (and a second person in Vol. 36) published in the anthologies? They obviously receive a lot of them, and some were executed so well, the judges looked past their biases and voted them in. It’s not that these judges don’t have their stated preference and belief, it’s that the stories were so good, they had no choice but to acknowledge them in their rankings, and those rankings were high enough to place first person stories above other finalists. 

I obviously have no issue with first person stories—my winner “Super-Duper Moongirl and the Amazing Moon Dawdler” was one. Tim Powers also admitted to me privately there was no stronger way to have written that story. In fact, he told me before departing for home he was rereading the story. “I’m trying to figure out how you did it” were his exact words. So there’s your answer as to how it got in. I used the tool with skill to craft an emotionally charged story that hit the mark, and they couldn’t deny it. 

That’s what anyone will have to do, with any of the POVs they choose for their story. It’s just good to know these judges have a strong preference, isn’t it? A saying comes to mind: Don’t kill the messenger. 

One last comment. I wrote another first person story earlier for WotF where I talk directly to the reader as if they were another godlike being. Through the entire tale. Here again, I heard Tim Powers at the last WotF workshop say don’t talk directly to your reader, it breaks the story spell. I agree with Tim. I know the rule, if we wish to call it such. I even teach it to my clients. Yet, I intentionally broke it. Why? It was the way I wished to tell this story. Did I win with it? No, it got a Silver HM. Meaning it was in the top-tier stack Dave selects his winners from, but Dave culled it out. Was it because he doesn’t like first person stories? Who knows? But I sent it to Galaxy’s Edge, and the editor recently bought it and said very nice things in her letter. She obviously didn’t have a problem with it, she paid me good money for it. 

Write your stories. Learn all the tools and rules and guidelines and tricks of the trade you can. Master them—first person, second person, third person, limited, omniscient, past tense, present tense, know what it is and how to expertly deploy it. Study the WotF Online Workshop—the judges tell you what makes for a well-crafted story, and they’re no slackers, they’re some of the best in the industry, and they’re telling you like it is. What you need to do. Listen to them.

My belief has always been this, and I quote it to you now. “Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.”—Pablo Picasso

Fortune favor the brave … and the studious!

Wulf Moon

For the record, I'm not a fan of first person and normally advise against it as well. I only mention this because I'm not trying to argue for the one true way. I'm trying to study the stories as we have been advised to do. The fact of the matter is that 1st person is accepted in relatively large numbers. The whole issue reminds me of a Ted Talk Malcome Gladwell gave where he referenced people's preference for coffee. But I digress. If first person POV is a hurdle, then those winners that manage to overcome it should be the ones we study more.

Seems rather apropos then to discuss The Tiger and the Waif (first story in Volume 37) by John M. Campbell. I would have started with this before, but I wasn't as curious as a writer about what worked with it.

This story starts with the protagonist (in first person) waking up. That's got to be two mortal sins in the first two words . That's some hutzpah (as Willy Shakespeare used to say)!

Okay, so let's use @prestondennet 's list to look at the story.

Posted by: @prestondennett

1. Polished Prose. Accessible readable writing. A few mis-spelled words are not a problem, but you must be able to write creatively and correctly.

2. Unique, original, creative, high concept trope. Please make your story interesting! Perhaps the most important element of all.

3. Strong hook. The judges can tell in the first few pages (or even the first paragraph) whether it's going to be a good story. En media res! Start with the action! Get right to the conflict asap.

4. Satisfying ending. So important! Tie up those loose endings. You must stick the landing. 

5. Interesting, vivid, settings with colors, smells, textures.

6. Well-drawn complex realistic characters who have a catharsis and change by the end of the story. WOTF also loves unique characters, a phoenix, a dryad, an AI -- a character off the beaten path. 

7. A good plot with suspense and action and try/fail cycles and unexpected and surprising twists and turns. (This is not always present though...some are perhaps better described as adventure stories with a series of events, or mood pieces, and can be very entertaining without the traditional try/fail suspense structure.)

8. Emotion! Make your reader cry. Make them laugh. Make them gasp with wonder. Nothing is more boring than a dry parched story without emotion.

9. Family (or friends.) Look at the stories and you will see how prominent relationships are. 

10. Dialogue. Good, snappy repartee!

1. Check. I think this is a low bar, but one I've tripped over myself. In any event, I think this story has it.

2. Android cat rescues girl, kind of a save-the-cat in reverse. I dig it.

3. Oof, I'm not seeing that. Aside from what I stated above, the beginning is a bit of an info-dump. No need to drag this through the mud (again, we're looking more for what works than what doesn't), so if I'm missing something here (or anywhere) about what is working, LET ME KNOW!

4. I think this cat lands on all fours.

5. and 6. I'm going to blur. In fact, I think this is where I thought the story really started to shine. When the protagonist describes itself giving itself a bath, I thought that was well drawn and pushes the detail beyond just robot cat. Then the cat's sass is so feline that I thought it was great.

7. Definitely think we have that. The limitations of the protagonist's design factor into the story and create more suspense without feeling contrived.

8. Cute ending. I'm not crying, but I can recognize the feels.

9. Technically, a yes.

10. I think I covered this already, but yes.

So, there's not a spot for this on the list, but I'm going to comment on the title. I can't put my finger on it, but I feel like it references something or is resonate of some classic title. It could have gone "trendier" with something like "The Girl and the Robot Cat," but I like the more classic diction of "waif." I think "The Tiger" might be a teeny bit misleading, but it still works.

But that's just what I'm seeing. This works better when we combine our mental muscles and push us all a bit further. What are you all seeing with The Tiger and the Waif?

One mystery to all this is how represented each style is in the entry pool. If eighty percent of all entries are in one style, but only fifty percent of winners, that would be a whole other consideration...

All very academic, however, since we'll likely never know the answer to that particular chestnut. Also, I think it would be skewed at the base level, because I have heard that a lot of new writers find first person an easy way to begin writing, so you could also have a bias of first person amongst less experienced writers, and a more even split once your reach the level of the more competitive writers.

All of which is to say, who knows? I certainly don't.

Posted by: @wulfmoon

Posted by: @babooher

@zeeteebeez I agree. What I would say is, if some of the judges are saying don't do first person but obviously are willing to accept first person, then what makes these first person stories so good that they clear the extra hurdle? Or are the judges saying that first person is perfectly acceptable but a lot of people just don't do it well? Both could be true or it could be something else. I know I generally don't like first person point of view, but one of my favorite books is written in first person. I think that shows the problem isn't first person POV, it's the way too many writers handle it.

 

No, I can put your question to bed, babooher, and have done so in the Forum before. The three instructors at my Volume 35 WotF workshop—David Farland, Scott Card, and Tim Powers—devoted an hour as to why you should only write in third person, past tense. Scott Card spoke extensively on why it’s the only true way to tell a story. All three of them stated they have a strong dislike for first person stories. Scott Card then said he recognized some first person stories do make it into the anthology, and he said that’s because they have to judge what they have been given and do their best to judge all fairly based on their merits. And then he hammered down again that third person past tense is the only true way to tell a story. That they said all of this is a fact.

Then why are many first person stories (and a second person in Vol. 36) published in the anthologies? They obviously receive a lot of them, and some were executed so well, the judges looked past their biases and voted them in. It’s not that these judges don’t have their stated preference and belief, it’s that the stories were so good, they had no choice but to acknowledge them in their rankings, and those rankings were high enough to place first person stories above other finalists. 

I obviously have no issue with first person stories—my winner “Super-Duper Moongirl and the Amazing Moon Dawdler” was one. Tim Powers also admitted to me privately there was no stronger way to have written that story. In fact, he told me before departing for home he was rereading the story. “I’m trying to figure out how you did it” were his exact words. So there’s your answer as to how it got in. I used the tool with skill to craft an emotionally charged story that hit the mark, and they couldn’t deny it. 

That’s what anyone will have to do, with any of the POVs they choose for their story. It’s just good to know these judges have a strong preference, isn’t it? A saying comes to mind: Don’t kill the messenger. 

One last comment. I wrote another first person story earlier for WotF where I talk directly to the reader as if they were another godlike being. Through the entire tale. Here again, I heard Tim Powers at the last WotF workshop say don’t talk directly to your reader, it breaks the story spell. I agree with Tim. I know the rule, if we wish to call it such. I even teach it to my clients. Yet, I intentionally broke it. Why? It was the way I wished to tell this story. Did I win with it? No, it got a Silver HM. Meaning it was in the top-tier stack Dave selects his winners from, but Dave culled it out. Was it because he doesn’t like first person stories? Who knows? But I sent it to Galaxy’s Edge, and the editor recently bought it and said very nice things in her letter. She obviously didn’t have a problem with it, she paid me good money for it. 

Write your stories. Learn all the tools and rules and guidelines and tricks of the trade you can. Master them—first person, second person, third person, limited, omniscient, past tense, present tense, know what it is and how to expertly deploy it. Study the WotF Online Workshop—the judges tell you what makes for a well-crafted story, and they’re no slackers, they’re some of the best in the industry, and they’re telling you like it is. What you need to do. Listen to them.

My belief has always been this, and I quote it to you now. “Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.”—Pablo Picasso

Fortune favor the brave … and the studious!

Wulf Moon

 

I mean no disrespect, but it occurs to me that David Farland, Orson Scott Card, and Tim Powers are not the only judges in the contest. It further occurs to me that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and that some of the other judges might like first person present tense. While none are represented in the current sample, that could be due to any number of reasons: Perhaps they haven't been vocal on their opinions regarding perspectives. Perhaps they vocalized their opinions somewhere less openly related to the contest.

I'm not arguing with the fact that they've stated these things. I simply feel that, if the judges are willing to judge a story on its own merits despite personal biases, that third person past and first person present are equally viable in the hands of a skilled writer. Pushing the fact that some of the judges have a hard preference for third person past feels like it could potentially quash a new writer's creativity because they feel like they have to do things one specific way. I certainly don't think you'd ever do such a thing intentionally--I just feel the need to explain why things could be misinterpreted, if only due to the frequent and adamant way the judges' preferences are stated.

My thoughts on tenses don't just apply to WotF, for the record--this is a general thought process I have regarding most markets. (My first writing group, which I eventually left because it didn't work well for me, drilled the importance of writing third person past into me like crazy. I toed the line for four years, but after Superstars I started trying new things--and I've done very well with sales when it comes to alternate perspectives and tenses. I personally think in first person, so writing in first person makes it easier for me to include emotion in my stories, which is something I struggled with for a long time.)

Posted by: @disgruntledpeony

Pushing the fact that some of the judges have a hard preference for third person past feels like it could potentially quash a new writer's creativity because they feel like they have to do things one specific way. I certainly don't think you'd ever do such a thing intentionally--I just feel the need to explain why things could be misinterpreted, if only due to the frequent and adamant way the judges' preferences are stated.

I thought about that very thing recently. I was all fired up over a story, but then realized I wasn't putting in a speculative element up front. So I tinkered and toiled, and then decided that WotF might not be the market for that story. There are other worlds out there.

BUT...I would say that this debate highlights the importance of looking at concrete examples. General rules (or guidelines ) are all well and good, but data is data. 1st person is accepted. No denying it. We see that not in the advice, but in the pages. I alluded to something earlier from Malcom Gladwell that I think I'll elaborate on now. Years ago, he gave a Ted Talk about Howard Moskowitz who brought us the era of different pickle flavors and different spaghetti sauces. This is an excerpt of the transcript:

GLADWELL: It's a mystery. And a critically important step in understanding our own desires and taste is to realize that we cannot always explain what we want deep down. If I asked all you, for example, in this room what you want in a coffee, you know what you would say? Every one of you would say I want a dark, rich, hearty roast. It's what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast.

(LAUGHTER)

GLADWELL: What percentage of you actually like a dark, rich, hearty roast? According to Howard, somewhere between 25 and 27 percent of you. Most of you like milky, weak coffee.

(LAUGHTER)

GLADWELL: But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want that I want a milky, weak coffee.

I don't want to imply that the judges don't know what they want or can't elucidate clearly. I'm saying the pages tell a tale all their own (it's that pesky Authorial Intent argument creeping in with the data). Do as Wulf Moon suggests and write your tales. Take the advice seriously. And one piece of advice that comes up so often is STUDY THE WINNERS (like @disgruntledpeony and Wulf Moon and anyone else in that book).

So let's read like writers. What are we learning from these stories?

I think it also might be helpful to distinguish between what a judge - or anyone - likes best as an individual, and what, in an objective sense, the same person might recognize as a superior effort in a professional situation.

Example: I'm not much into heavy metal as a music genre. I much prefer classical, folk, rock ballads, etc. That said, Disturbed's cover of Sound of Silence is better than the Simon & Garfunkle version, and I seriously love the S&G version - like, I had it in vinyl growing up.

So if someone is a professional wine reviewer, we'd expect that person to have their individual preferences, say, a nice merlot, but also to be able to recognize and appreciate the full gamut of wine varieties. We wouldn't expect them to downgrade an excellent vinho verde simply because it's not merlot.

Similarly, we wouldn't expect an illustrator judge who prefers oil-on-canvas to downgrade good art just because it's digital.

It works the same way with the writer judges. Yes, they have their preferences as individuals, but judging is a different animal. A judge is expected to be conversant with a wide variety of genres, structures, POVs, etc., and then to be able to recognize outstanding versions of each. That's literally their job.

Martin Shoemaker tells a great story about the Meijer sculpture garden in Grand Rapids. The original family of donors started it and developed a collection that began to attract national attention. A prominent critic toured the garden, then offered his opinion.

"You have a very good collection," he said. "But you won't have a world class collection until you start including pieces that you don't personally like." The family listened, and Meijer Sculpture Garden now has a world class collection.  😉

This contest isn't just about judges picking their favorite stories; it's about judges choosing the best stories. Best and favorite are different. Favorite is personal preference. Best is an evaluation of several different technical and emotional factors. It is entirely possible to have a favorite story because it hits your personal buttons, and at the same time believe that a different story is objectively better in an evaluative sense because it has better use of language, an innovative structure, a brilliant premise, etc.

My favorite ice cream is deep, dark chocolate. But if I'm told to choose the best dessert at the county fair, I will totally give the vote to a superior creme brulee over and above the chocolate ice cream if the situation warrants.

So yes, some of the judges have preferences, and writing to those preferences is a completely legitimate way to approach the contest. But I also have to argue for writing the story you want to write in the way that story needs to be written. (Go not to the elves for counsel...)

Incidentally, here's what Dave says about how to choose the stories you want to win with. Think about what you want to be known for. If you want to make a career writing fast-paced mil SF, then that's what you enter with because that's what you want to win with. If you want to write beautiful but deliberately uncomfortable fantasies with a literary feel, then that's what you submit because that's what you want to win with.

If you win with apocalyptic SF but you want to write epic fantasy, you may have a hard time making the transition because people will expect apocalyptic SF when they see your name. This kind of thing is why Dave changed his author name from Wolverton (who wrote SF) to Farland, who writes fantasy. Dave won with SF, and after he won, everybody wanted SF from him, and editors didn't pay much attention when he tried to pitch fantasy.

So Dave says that if you can, you should try to win with the exact kind of thing you want to write for the rest of your career. Winning is hard. It takes lots of practice, effort and heartache. If you write the stuff you want to write for the rest of your life, then all of that practice, effort and heartache serves your ultimate career goal.

Yes, there's value in learning how to write the perfect third past story, but will that also serve your long-term career goals? Only you can answer that.

Here's a quote from James Artimus Owen, one of the instructors at Superstars Writing Seminar: Never sacrifice what you want most, for what you want most right now. Maybe what you want right now is to win the contest. Awesome goal. I hope every single one of you achieves it. If you think winning the contest means writing a certain way, that's completely valid.

But I also encourage you to take a larger view of things. Winning the contest is only the beginning. You have a whole career ahead of you, so when you're planning your next several entries, think about what you want most for yourself as a writer. It might lead you to different stories, or a different way of writing them.

Erratum: The sculpture park is called Meijer Gardens.

I have no problem with first person. Mike Resnick published an entire collection of hist first person stories to show how it can be done. If Mike said it was OK, it's OK. Besides, my V31 winner was first person. More than half my work is first person.

What I hate--absolutely hate--is present tense. It's completely gimmicky and nearly impossible to get right.

And when you put them together... Never, ever, ever write a short story in first person present. That's crazy talk! Why, you might... you might...

You might get a Nebula nomination, and a Washington Science Fiction Association Small Press Award, and reprinted in four Year's Best anthologies.

You might get an agent out of it, and the agent will encourage you to turn it into a novel. That's impossible! Nobody can successfully write an entire novel in first person present. That's insane! And if you did, you'd never sell it.

And even if somehow you sold it, you'd better expect readers to hate it. You certainly shouldn't expect, say, an average 4.7 rating on Amazon.

Where did they hide that tongue-in-cheek emoticon?

I had no choice. "Today I Am Paul" required first person present (which I really do hate). It was the way that story came to me. And then I put in the blood, swear, and tears to maintain that very difficult POV in the novel, because the story demanded it.

I believe you have to do what the story demands. The only real rule is Kipling's:

There are nine and sixty ways
Of constructing tribal lays
And-every-single-one-of-them-is-right!

And if you ever want to see what a world-class curated sculpture park looks like, come to Grand Rapids, and I'll give you the Martin tour of Meijer Gardens. My stories aren't true, they're better than true!

Even worse: editors keep asking for more stories in the Today I Am Carey universe. There are two more coming next year. And because I believe in stylistic consistency, I'm stuck. Every time an editor asks for one of these stories, I have to slide back into (shudder) first person present...

Posted by: @karyenglish

This contest isn't just about judges picking their favorite stories; it's about judges choosing the best stories.

Excellent point!

Posted by: @karyenglish

So Dave says that if you can, you should try to win with the exact kind of thing you want to write for the rest of your career. Winning is hard. It takes lots of practice, effort and heartache. If you write the stuff you want to write for the rest of your life, then all of that practice, effort and heartache serves your ultimate career goal.

 

I had not heard him say this. I appreciate you poitning it out. This clarifies a struggle I have had about choosing what to write and submit. 

Thanks!

Posted by: @martin-l-shoemaker

My stories aren't true, they're better than true!

I love this quote!

I sit back and read my story and say to myself, that's not following the rules. You must change.

Posted by: @karyenglish

So Dave says that if you can, you should try to win with the exact kind of thing you want to write for the rest of your career. Winning is hard. It takes lots of practice, effort and heartache. If you write the stuff you want to write for the rest of your life, then all of that practice, effort and heartache serves your ultimate career goal.

But I also encourage you to take a larger view of things. Winning the contest is only the beginning. You have a whole career ahead of you, so when you're planning your next several entries, think about what you want most for yourself as a writer. It might lead you to different stories, or a different way of writing them.

Well said, Kary! That was downright motivating. Write what you want, in the voice and style that you want to be known for--just do it well enough to win. This just changed the direction of my next story.

I won with a milieu story. Kodiak Julian won with a series of linked vignettes. Scott Parkin won with a 2500 word story where every sentence was 5 words long. Tina Gower won with first-present from the POV of an autistic detective. I'm pretty sure one of this quarter's finalists was flash.

My semi was written in omni (now there's a love that dare not speak its name!), and my second finalist was a frame story that alternated between first present and first past.

Don't be afraid to experiment. The unusual stories stand out. Yes, you need to stay within the content guidelines, and it's important to get the spec in up front, etc. but you've still got lots of room to innovate.

Posted by: @karyenglish

So Dave says that if you can, you should try to win with the exact kind of thing you want to write for the rest of your career.

So, what if you want to write stories across the spectrum?
Dean Koontz writes thrillers, horror, science fiction, fantasy (just not high fantasy), and generally goes wherever he wants.

Robert R. McCammon has written horror, post apocalyptic, coming of age, historical fiction, and any mixture thereof.

Stephen King has written probably every known genre.

Kevin J. Anderson has historical fiction, superhero fiction, science fiction, fantasy, dark comedy, and horror.

David Gemmell wrote heroic fantasy, thrillers, historical fantasy, and post apocalyptic. 

Orson Scott Card has written science fiction, fantasy, and religious fiction(?).

Robert Ludlum, known for spy thrillers like the Jason Bourne books wrote comedy, too. 

Bernard Cornwell, who writes predominantly historical fiction, has a series of sailing thrillers.

James Oliver Rigney (Robert Jordan) wrote everything from Conan (swords and sorcery), to WoT (epic fantasy), to romance. 

Granted, some authors wrote pseudonymously when writing in other genres, but some didn't—and don't. What if you don't want to write trilogies or series?

There is no formula for winning; however, Dave has specific formulae for not winning.

Ten Reasons Why I’ll Quickly Reject Your Story — MyStoryDoctor.com

Why You Only Got an Honorable Mention — MyStoryDoctor.com

For those who don't subscribe alreaady, there's also a form at the bottom to subscribe to his newsletter. Before your story can win, Dave has to think it deserves to win. You could do worse than to read his writing tips.