[Sticky] New Results Categories! Introducing DQ and Rejected With Comments

Posted by: @storysinger

↑

Instead of a list of possible reasons for rejection, can it be narrowed down to the actual reason for the R?

Two thousand submissions multiplied by thirty seconds to type out the exact reason = 16.5 extra hours of work. And that's assuming it's only one reason and easy/concise to describe. In real life, I think it's more likely to be 40-100 hours. 

Honestly, the list for RWC isn't that long. Assuming you've been working on your craft for a while, it shouldn't take a writer too long to identify the related issues with their piece. I have a checklist far longer than the RWC list (which grew with every rejection) that I used before  submitting. I'd recommend one for anyone receiving RWCs.

Furthermore, the discussion in this thread feels incredibly scientifically analytical. It reminds me of a code review: here's the piece of pure logic trying to solve a binary task; either solved or not. Hoping the contest will piece-by-piece point out each of your "bugs" is misguided.

This is science fiction, not science. It's an art form, not engineering. While you can iterate your way to success, it's not the guarantee it is in the workplace. I'd also argue that it's slowing your progress: the most experience comes from completing the entire process, start to end. That means writing a story, not editing a finished one again and again.

With all the love, albeit tough love: stop worrying about the minutae of a Returned, and get back to writing.

@ease Agreed that writing out the exact reason for a RWC is too laborious.  This is why many of us suggest just a checkmark off a list of common reasons for rejection.

You state that it, "shouldn't take a writer too long to identify the related issues with their piece."  That's where I struggle, as I've indicated elsewhere on this list.  Your generalization doesn't hold with me.  Nailing down the aesthetics of the judges has eluded me.

If you think this thread feels incredibly scientifically analytical ... well, here, hold my beer!  (j/k)

You make an analogy of a software code review.  I've been through several of those to, and they're not binary.  They often ask if the algorithm selected is the correct one, if the data structures are appropriately extensible, etc.

Here's a tidbit off a letter from John Adam to his wife (probably late 1700s):  “The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.”

The pinnacle of society is not its technology but its art.  As an engineer (and a very good one at that), I hope you take my comment as sincere.  Excellence in art is built upon excellence in knowledge, whether it is physical science in the plot or social science in the character development.  Science fiction is science--it is science combined with futurist prediction--each requiring deep knowledge.  Science fiction without science is better termed future fantasy.  Popular culture feeds future fantasy more than science fiction, just as it feeds rock more than symphony.

I'm also touched by something Robert Florczak said.  "How do we know that classical art, as opposed to modern art, is so good?  We know it, because it was produced withinin the demanding standards and refined principles of aesthetics--the centuries-old philosophy that measures artistic quality."  In his lecture, he goes on to explain the metrics by which aesthetics are measured: composition, form, color, line, texture, movement, etc.

You stated, "Hoping the contest will piece-by-piece point out each of your 'bugs' is misguided."  Generalizing this discussion to a single point and labeling detractors as misguided is rude.  Please be more polite in your discourse.

For WtoF, the pinnacle prize is the writers' workshop.  The winners, like you, gain an opportunity to learn at the feet of masters and learn how they might improve their craft.  Why is it so wrong that losers like me grasp for a boon, single checkmark, from a slush-pile reader in order to improve my writing?

Mark

@markwilx

I apologize for any rudeness in my previous comments: I'm just frustrated to see people that I want to succeed waste their efforts on arguing about the fine details of a Returned, when they could instead be writing new stories or getting more experienced (in terms of the contest, not writing in general) eyes on their pieces.

If you're seeking more feedback, the slush-pile of the world's largest competition, which already gives more feedback than most with their tiered results, is the wrong place.

May I suggest: critique exchanges, study of the contest (check your piece ala a code review using Wulf's Super Secrets and Martin's Unwritten Rules), or submitting to magazines known for personal returns (Beneath Ceaseless Skies).

If you're seeking to improve your craft: read, write, and discuss. A checkbox is going to do very little for you in comparison.

Posted by: @markwilx

↑

@storysinger -- I think the effectiveness of RWC is very limited.  It means only one thing -- your story is worth revising.

I'm on similar lines to Ease in that I wouldn't read too much into it. I got an HM with one story, added one sentence which I think improved the story (foreshadowing the ending), thinking I might bump it up to SHM, but instead got a straight R (and my first in over 3 years which made it even more annoying ?).

@markwilx I don't think he was being rude at all. He may be stating something that you disagree with, but that doesn't make it rude.

Much of what you said/quoted is subjective as well. Simply using criteria doesn't make it objective. Composition, form, color, line, texture, movement, etc. are all subjective measures. In other words we don't "know" that classic art is better than modern.

I also agree with ease and others when they state that anyone should be able to look at the RWC and strengthen their piece on it regardless of whether they know which one the judges rejected them form. Why not just address all of them? Heck, why not address all of them before you submit?

If you can't do that then knowing what one is missing isn't going to help you in the first place. So, just assume you failed them all. It can't hurt to go back and try to strengthen every single element.

Posted by: @karyenglish

↑

 

• 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

 

I just went back and looked at these. Most of them should be obvious I would hope.

The only ones that stand out as being more difficult to notice/address for me are the beginnings and endings.

But if you know you weren't overly political, religious, violent, sexual, or profane, and/or written for kids... well, that narrows it down quite a bit.

Put your speculative item up front, or at least one of them. Make sure that the they aren't just fluff, i.e. the story won't work if they are removed.

Then tighten up your beginning and ending.

Thanks for the input, everyone. 

I'm certain one of my rwc's was three, content. The theme was a misguided attempt at suicide prevention.

The second was #five. Your story was for children. Well, it was definitely PG-13.  

About spec elements...

I remember a story a few years ago about a street urchin running errands on the town docks. Very adventure-y, well-written, and it *felt* like a fantasy milieu. I would happily have read a whole novel in that world. The boy eventually earned some coin and sailed away as a ship's boy on one of the wooden merchant ships in the harbor. The problem was zero magic. Nothing that made it actual fantasy instead of historical or adventure fiction. Even pirates are adventure fiction, not fantasy, unless you have zombies, curses, or some other fantastical element that is integral to the plot.

Think of the difference between Treasure Island and Peter Pan. Peter Pan is speculative, but Treasure Island is not.

A romance in a castle isn't speculative at all, and a romance on a spaceship is only minimally speculative. If you could move your entire plot from a spaceship to a submarine and have everything work, the spaceship part isn't integral to the plot.

Hope this helps!

Kary

Extra tidbit: The most common RWC problem is starting your story too early, too far away from the inciting incident, or starting well with a nice hook and then heading straight into 2-pages of infodump/backstory.  😉

@karyenglish Thanks for explanation.

Just want to chime in because this is a common complaint I've seen from writers about other pro markets - that they don't give personal feedback, or they don't give it enough. At the Apex Flash Contest, the grinder shows me having a personal rate of 27%, which is way higher than most other markets that don't do 100% personals, and let me tell y'all it takes TIME. Even a sentence talking about what didn't work for me adds a few minutes to each response, and when I'm sending 50+ responses in a day, I simply don't have time to respond to that many. I have nothing but admiration for markets that do all personals, especially BCS, because I simply don't know how they do it. Having WotF even give a glimmer of a reason for rejection is hugely helpful, IMO. (Also I'm a little jelly as that's the one tier of response I never got lol)

Posted by: @karyenglish

↑

 

• 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

 

Those seem like good categories to point someone in the right direction.

Nice to know this on a story, even though it adds to the slush readers workload.

I still would rather see this moved up to the HM level, rather than the R level.  That would lesson the readers workload (much less HMs than R out there).  Feedback is good, no matter what level it's at. I'm glad WotF is taking the time to give feedback, since the majority of markets just say R.

Posted by: @karyenglish

↑

Extra tidbit: The most common RWC problem is starting your story too early, too far away from the inciting incident, or starting well with a nice hook and then heading straight into 2-pages of infodump/backstory.  😉

Good piece of info to remember. I've fallen victim to both.  I also need to remember pace and that it's a short story, not a novel.

@rschibler Well said.

I'm also a bit jealous in regards to last quarters R for a story my readers felt was a top 5 of mine. I could have used that RWC category.

Posted by: @rschibler

↑

I have nothing but admiration for markets that do all personals, especially BCS, because I simply don't know how they do it.

Amen to that. My last rejection from them came with two emails of feedback, incorporating several paragraphs of helpful and relevant comments each! Unbelievable, really.

@toddjones ditto for me.

Posted by: @toddjones

↑

@rschibler Well said.

I'm also a bit jealous in regards to last quarters R for a story my readers felt was a top 5 of mine. I could have used that RWC category.

Don’t forget that WotF is also a market, despite the contest and the workshop/gala. Sometimes it is fit, not quality!

@ease Scott H Andrews gives the best feedback and they are so generous with their time. I love it.

Posted by: @ease

↑

@markwilx

I'm just frustrated to see people that I want to succeed waste their efforts on arguing about the fine details of a Returned, when they could instead be writing new stories or getting more experienced (in terms of the contest, not writing in general) eyes on their pieces.

I understand better now, thank you.

I do write as much as my schedule allows.  And you're absolutely right, the best thing you can do to improve your writing is to write and submit more stories to the contest to get experienced eyes on our work.

Here, however, is my perspective.  I first submitted to the contest for volume 25.  I submitted two stories in that contest year and received two HMs.  We're now at, what, volume 40?  Better than 50% of my stories hit the HM mark.  That's pretty good, I think, but I've never done better.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that I'm not progressing in my skill -- at least not from the perspective of the contest judges (slush pile readers?).

I remember reading a WotF contest winner one year.  The story was about a composer, a recluse, who lived in a space station orbiting Saturn.  For his magnum opus, he built a mass driver cannon and "played" a symphony by firing mass at Saturn's rings to make them resonate tunes.  After reading that, I thought to myself, "I'll never win this contest."  I haven't worked Saturn but I followed the Cassini spacecraft closely, and I've worked on a couple spacecraft that went to Mars (MER and MRO).  From a planetary science perspective, playing music on the rings of Saturn is ludicrously silly -- creative imaginings I'd expect in a child's board book.  To me it read more like The Little Prince than something I'd expect to find in an sci-fi & fantasy anthology.  And that's my limiting flaw: I see a winning story as a silly child's tale.  My technical skill in writing has improved, but I have a blind spot and keep missing the mark.

Again, thanks for commenting.

Mark

Posted by: @undreamedages

↑

Much of what you said/quoted is subjective as well. Simply using criteria doesn't make it objective. Composition, form, color, line, texture, movement, etc. are all subjective measures. In other words we don't "know" that classic art is better than modern.

I think that is the key difference between the two of us.  I know that classic art is better than modern.  Why?  Well, that is subjective, isn't it?  But there is a way to "know."  Individually by the emotion response to experiencing the art, collectively by the grinding decay of time and what remains in the consciousness.

We also disagree that criteria can make the subjective more objective.  I believe it can.  I think any professor of art at a college or university would agree with my viewpoint.  Those that lead revolutions would agree with your viewpoint.

I think where we might agree is that your viewpoint is more conducive to creating a winning entry in WotF than my viewpoint in doing the same.

Mark

Posted by: @markwilx

↑

The story was about a composer, a recluse, who lived in a space station orbiting Saturn.  For his magnum opus, he built a mass driver cannon and "played" a symphony by firing mass at Saturn's rings to make them resonate tunes.  After reading that, I thought to myself, "I'll never win this contest."  I haven't worked Saturn but I followed the Cassini spacecraft closely, and I've worked on a couple spacecraft that went to Mars (MER and MRO).  From a planetary science perspective, playing music on the rings of Saturn is ludicrously silly -- creative imaginings I'd expect in a child's board book.  To me it read more like The Little Prince than something I'd expect to find in an sci-fi & fantasy anthology.

In all fairness, scientifically that is hilariously wrong. But not every winner in that volume was like that, were they? (I'm guessing, I haven't read that one). There's normally one or two winners per volume that are too surreal or too internal/emotion-based for me to fully comprehend. But then there are ten or so that do conform to the rules of physics (and everything else) and do have a tangible conflict, and I love them, and it's those ones that I aimed my stories to rest amongst. I think that's a positive aspect of the anthologies, not a negative, that many different approaches/types of stories can lead to success.

Posted by: @toddjones

↑

Those seem like good categories to point someone in the right direction.

Nice to know this on a story, even though it adds to the slush readers workload.

I still would rather see this moved up to the HM level, rather than the R level.  That would lesson the readers workload (much less HMs than R out there).  Feedback is good, no matter what level it's at. I'm glad WotF is taking the time to give feedback, since the majority of markets just say R.

 

For anyone wanting feedback on why their story didn't make it beyond honorable mention, there's always this timeless classic from Dave Farland.

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

I've had several rejections (back in the days before RWC existed), several HM's, and one SF. I have to admit it is very frustrating to see stories that you love not earn higher in the contest. I've looked at my one SF and thought to myself, Surely if that one got a SF, these others that I've written since (which I believe are better) should do just as well, if not better. So far, not yet. I also thought any of my HM's or my one SF would have been picked up by SOMEONE out in the market world. So far, not yet. All we can do — and all we can control — is how much we write and work to improve.

One piece of advice I would offer (and this is something I personally struggled with for years when I started writing): don't write stories with the goal of winning contests or selling to the markets. Write stories because you enjoy writing stories. The contest wins and market sales and awards and all that other stuff might follow, but there's never any guarantee for anyone. Be happy just doing the work, and everything else will take care of itself.

@markwilx I understand what you're saying with getting only 50% of HMs now and thinking you aren't progressing with your skill, but I respectfully disagree with that logic. My submissions went: R,R,R, HM, R, R, R, R, R, SHM, R,R,R,W.

You haven't hit a ceiling. The story is just sometimes not the right for the contest, no matter how well it's written.

"Stories that keep me reading all the way through will almost always get Honorable Mention." Quote from David Farland.

The story that gets RWC must be getting read to identify the reason for not getting HM. Why is that? 

@storysinger all of the reasons for receiving a RWC except a poor ending can be determined without reading the entire story. Some could even be found in the first page.

I'd imagine the ones that aren't in the almost always category have poorly crafted endings. Keep in mind that quote predates RWC by several years.

Posted by: @jabecker

↑

@markwilx I understand what you're saying with getting only 50% of HMs now and thinking you aren't progressing with your skill, but I respectfully disagree with that logic. My submissions went: R,R,R, HM, R, R, R, R, R, SHM, R,R,R,W.

You haven't hit a ceiling. The story is just sometimes not the right for the contest, no matter how well it's written.

 

Thanks this makes me feel better.

Yes, RWC should be interpreted as "This story could've received an Honorable Mention or better, but it suffers from one or more of these correctable flaws." If it were an easily rejectable story, the slush readers would just reject it. RWC means it has promise.