Jibber Jabber - Q1 - 29

I can't help but feel like I'm totally screwed this quarter. But then.. that's how I feel EVERY quarter.

So I'll be brave and ask for those of us not in the know... da heck are LAMPS?

I can't help but feel like I'm totally screwed this quarter. But then.. that's how I feel EVERY quarter.

So I'll be brave and ask for those of us not in the know... da heck are LAMPS?

Last Minute Paper (or Postal) Submitter.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

See, you all thought I was going to say "Paper... How quaint..." I'm trying to expand my repertoire. It can't be all "WRITE! WRITE! WRITE!" and "The cat is unknown" and "NNiNN" and "The stories I could tell you..." Sometimes you need some new material.

I'm awake, I'm awake...

I'm filtering Hazlett's list:

Tina - (LAMPS)
Francis Bruno (HOLD PILE)
Martin Shoemaker
Izanobu - (HOLD PILE)
Marina - (LAMPS)
Kary - (LAMPS)
Dustin - (LAMPS)
Jennifer Hicks (LAMPS)
The Happy Snappy Gator (HOLD PILE)
Isto - (LAMPS)
Preston
gwasch - (LAMPS)
DavidK

D

Ah, now I see things in a better light (my joke on LAMP for the night ) I bet the LAMPS are next to be considered, given that statistically now they are the majority of unknowns.. next Thursday is next month?

Speaking of which, does anyone know what the protocol is for logging an HM in Duotrope? My inclination is to record a "personal rejection." Please let me know so I can record my status ASAP.

Clearly there are no controls and no protocol. But there are two prevailing theories:

1. The Critique Theory: the only thing that counts as a personal rejection is something that includes comments specific to your story. In WotF, that means a Semi-Finalist or better, since Semis get critiques. (If you REALLY apply this theory strictly, non-winning non-published Finalists are form rejections, since they neither get published nor get critiqued.)

2. What we might call the Gator Theory: if they went to all that trouble to print up that pretty certificate with my name and my title on it, sign it, and mail it (across an ocean, in the Gator's case), then that's personal enough for me!

I lean toward the Gator Theory, though I do see the logic in the Critique Theory.

In the meantime, I'm sending my story out to the next market.

Good man! SUBMIT! SUBMIT! SUBMIT! etc.

I follow the Critique Theory model.

To me, an HM is like John Joseph Adams (at Lightspeed) giving me a second-tier rejection. Nicer than the bottom tier, but still a form. No words specific to my story.

A silver HM is JJA's third-tier rejection. Even though he says "I look forward to your next submission," it's still a form.

A semi-finalist is a rejection that gets personal feedback. It's a personal.

A finalist is either an acceptance or a personal. Personal because it's higher than a semifinalist, even though there's no unique feedback on the story.

Thanks Hazlett, we were all waiting. And congrats on the HM. Nice!
Here's another analysis, using the below scoring system:
HM = 1 point
SHM = 2 pts
SF = 4 pts
F = 8 pts
With so many tiers, it's difficult to see who's received the most recognition. But using this scoring system, the top three people on our list are:
Marina 18 pts
Annie (Izanobu) 14 pts
Martin 14 pts

Interestingly, none of you guys have received your response. Or have you and are now keeping a very special secret? I won't be suprised to see your stories in the next volume. Just a prediction. Either way, good luck!
Preston Dennett
(HM x 2)

Though he's not on our lists, if Dr. Phil is still in the game (he stops by here occasionally, for the newbies who don't know) he's probably got a score higher than the three of us combined... (Do you get ten points for a pubbed finalist? He's got one-o-those)

Oh, actually, here we go. From his LJ:

Rejected 6
No Call 1
Finalist 3 (1 published in WOTF XXIV, 2 in one year)
Semi 2
Quarter 10
H-M 15 (Quarter+H-M = 25)
Total 37
Subs 38 (WOTF Q4 2011 in)

He beats us individually w/HMs alone. And he got a SHM after this list. No results for Q1, yet, that I can see.

Dr. Phil's total (using 10 for pubbed finalists): 61
Of course, I think he's probably the record holder for the entirety of the contest.

Yay for useless number crunching/ Live-Journal stalking.

ETA: Re: listing HMs on Duo--I follow the Gator theory, though either way is really appropriate. A shiny, signed certificate is pretty personal, though for every other venue I absolutely adhere to the critique theory.

ETA: Re: listing HMs on Duo--I follow the Gator theory, though either way is really appropriate. A shiny, signed certificate is pretty personal, though for every other venue I absolutely adhere to the critique theory.

I like having a theory named after myself.

And ditto, Marina, for everywhere else.

ETA: Re: listing HMs on Duo--I follow the Gator theory, though either way is really appropriate. A shiny, signed certificate is pretty personal, though for every other venue I absolutely adhere to the critique theory.

I like having a theory named after myself.

And ditto, Marina, for everywhere else.

I do believe I've been won over to the Gator Theory. It's hard to argue the certificate.

Re: LAMPS

Last A????? Minute Paper Sub ?

LAst Minute Paper Sub.

I do believe I've been won over to the Gator Theory. It's hard to argue the certificate.

Well, my argument would be that the certificate is just a fancy rendition of "didn't quite work for me."

But to each his or her own! I certainly understand the Gator Theory.

Right, I think either way is really fine.

I only ask that no one list an acceptance if you haven't been accepted. ETA: I have this childish urge to create a wall-of-shame for all those who post HMs as acceptances. But of course, I shall refrain.

Re: LAMPS

Last A????? Minute Paper Sub ?

In Tina's case for Q1, I believe the "A" stood for "Agonizing". I want her to win just so she can tell that story in her acceptance speech!

What I've done on Duotrope is R=form rejection, HM=rejection, unspecified. I didn't feel comfortable calling it personal, but it wasn't totally form either (see, certificate).

Probably not helpful, just what I've done in the past.

Though he's not on our lists, if Dr. Phil is still in the game (he stops by here occasionally, for the newbies who don't know) he's probably got a score higher than the three of us combined... (Do you get ten points for a pubbed finalist? He's got one-o-those)

Yes, Dr. Phil (Our Dr. Phil, not that TV schlub) is my role model when it comes to patience and persistence. and determination. I'm a piker by comparison.

And looking at Preston's sytem again, it should probably be 16 points for a pubbed finalist, so we could bump his score to 67.

He's definitely a supreme model of determination, that's for sure.

And looking at Preston's sytem again, it should probably be 16 points for a pubbed finalist, so we could bump his score to 67.

He's definitely a supreme model of determination, that's for sure.

I might argue that his Quarterfinals count as Semis, not HMs, so that would put his score even higher.

Congratulations bobsandiego!

And looking at Preston's sytem again, it should probably be 16 points for a pubbed finalist, so we could bump his score to 67.

He's definitely a supreme model of determination, that's for sure.

I might argue that his Quarterfinals count as Semis, not HMs, so that would put his score even higher.

Why would Quarterfinals count as Semis? Wasn't it HMs that came from the old Quarters? Semi's were around at the same time.

And looking at Preston's sytem again, it should probably be 16 points for a pubbed finalist, so we could bump his score to 67.

He's definitely a supreme model of determination, that's for sure.

I might argue that his Quarterfinals count as Semis, not HMs, so that would put his score even higher.

Why would Quarterfinals count as Semis? Wasn't it HMs that came from the old Quarters? Semi's were around at the same time.

Were they? I wasn't around then, so I'm unclear. I understood it the other way, but I'm very likely wrong.

Were they? I wasn't around then, so I'm unclear. I understood it the other way, but I'm very likely wrong.

Yeah, I was around back then too. They only had Quarter-Finalist (I have several of those too), Semi-Finalist and Finalist. The best I can tell they just started calling Quarter-Finalist a Honorable Mention.

Congrats to all of you HM winners. Its still a big deal, even though its not the response you wanted.

My first HM was actually a quarter finalist. It was also my first submission.

OK, everybody now knows: Martin doesn't know what he's talking about. You should listen to me more, not him!

You are a quarter. Finalist.

Woo hoo!!!

No no - a quarter-finalist.

A what? I'm not a finalist for the quarter?

No. You have an Honorable Mention.

You are a quarter. Finalist.

Woo hoo!!!

No no - a quarter-finalist.

A what? I'm not a finalist for the quarter?

No. You have an Honorable Mention.

And now you know WHY they changed it.

I wasn't really around then either, but I glanced in every now and then hoping I'd write something. I didn't, but I remember seeing the quarterfinalists, and recently hearing that they changed it. So yeah, I'm just pulling things out of my ass here. Every now and then, though, I'm right. Makes me wonder how many times Hell has frozen over by now...

[quote="KDWentworth":3plz97f8]An Honorable Mention (formerly Quarterfinalist) is a story that has at least one (and usually more) area(s) of excellence, such as prose, characters, premise, setting, or plot, but is not retained for the very small pile of possible Finalists.
Typically, an Honorable Mention means that you have scored in the top fifteen percent of all entries.

Re: LAMPS

Last A????? Minute Paper Sub ?

In Tina's case for Q1, I believe the "A" stood for "Agonizing". I want her to win just so she can tell that story in her acceptance speech!

Thanks! I'd be sure to mention you too (who is also out in the audience for winning as well) since you kept cheering me on and finding our local 24hr post office. Makes it more dramatic that it was New Years.