[/gripe; return to usual chipper self]
I read 2 top-level SF mags recently -- to keep up. I don't read them often. This experiment confirmed me in that, unfortunately.
I tried to avoid spoilers here; no guarantees. Here's what I found:
* A story that was about half info dump, and assumed that space aliens can have children with humans
* A story that was 1/3 summary, done as flashback, and what happened in the present was a guy met a girl
* A story in which, 2/3 of the way through, MC discovered the point of the story, but wouldn't tell us till the last paragraph
* Another in which the answer was scientifically implausible
* Somebody found a spiritual connection the land after nothing happened
* Somebody decided to get a life after nothing happened
* Somebody's stranded on a doomed world. Now we're getting somewhere, I thought! The resolution was that somebody who'd decided to leave her there changed his mind, for no apparent reason
Most of these were by published novelists, but the ones by apparent newbies weren't stellar either. It's not that the famous can print anything they want. It's that editorial tastes are, well, not mine.
So it's no wonder our critiques are all over the map -- so are editors', I think. A fact of life, even if it is annoying to see one critiquer say "I don't get this at all" -- and to know that there's an editor out there who's bound to agree!
On the plus side, I think many of us here are good enough, and just need to play a numbers game. On the minus side . . . I sure would love to have a fix of great SF every month, but I don't see magazines that fit the bill. OTOH, Shimmer hasn't been released yet!
[/gripe; return to usual chipper self]
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited July 25, 2005).]
I continue to strive to be better... not so a publisher will publish me (although that would be awesome) but so I can be GOOD. I would dread having a book published and have readers pan it for stupid mistakes like missing plot points or such.
I've got to wonder how bad stories get published at all.
It's absolutely true that vastly imperfect stories get published every day, and there is no reason why your own stuff shouldn't be published, too. Make it as good as you can and send it off and hope for the best. It really is a numbers game, to a depressing extent.
Theory 1: That there truly is almost no exceptional literature to be had by any author; that they all have some major flaw that most of us would find problematic such as plot holes, info dumps, flashbacks, or withheld information. Even publications that get thousands of stories may not find these stories if they exist 1 in a thousand...especially if they're in a bad mood the day they skim past the one exceptional story and don't like their first sentence.
Theory 2: Published authors get published no matter what crap they write. Unpublished authors work a bit like a lottery -- maybe they wee out the ones with gross formatting, spelling, and grammar errors, but the rest is luck.
Theory 3: There is something in these stories aside from the problems that make them a gem (to someone) despite the flaws. Others might see gold where you saw lead. In fact, everyone has different tastes, including editors. I've hated htings that everyone else raves about...well, here's an example from last night. My husband and I finally got around to watching "Schindler's List" because he had to for a class he's taking. I joined him because it's a classic everyone says you have to watch...but I don't see why. Frankly, the first half (which as far as I've gotten so far) nearly put me to sleep. I'm trying to decide if I'm going to watch the second half with him tonight...but everyone says this is a great movie! I've participated in friendly short story contests (for example, on Mike's site) where we get to vote after reading the stories. More often than not, my favorite does not win. Several times, my *least* favorite has one.
I suspect, though, that the rationale is a combination of all three. Truly good stories are rare, published authors get first dibs, and everyone's tatste is different. It doesn't stop it from being frustrating, of course.
...and I think the quality of fiction by famous writers, at least in modern times, shows this.
For politeness's sake, I won't give details, but for my favorite living authors, I have almost stopped reading their new stuff. I still go back and re-read the things that thrilled me in the 70's and 80's, but the new stuff I just can't make myself do.
I think the thing is, they don't have to be stellar any more, so they aren't. If one of them were here, anonymously, running stuff past us, we'd be saying: you obviously know your mechanics, and how to tell a story, but this just isn't ready for publication. Let's make a pact: when we're famous, we'll strive not just to get another contract, but to deserve it.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited July 26, 2005).]
Writing does have trends that change every few years. Maybe what I like to read will come back in style, though in modern English rather than Classic English. Either way, it will be written, even if not published till a later time.
No wonder you see published authors with a long list of family and friends in the acknowledgements. They've pulled in crit groups from the people around them.
Then I've read my own stuff and said "Well, maybe I can't"
I think reducing time to print and reducing overhead costs (editing) have hurt the quality of novel-length work.
Shorter fiction, I don't know about, but I agree that I find alot that to me as a reader is abysmal. Makes me wonder how bad the stuff is that gets rejected.
Someday, I really need to submit something.
I think we're rejecting 95% of the submissions to Shimmer right now.
But please, Christine, send us a story! (was that begging too loud?)
Several years ago, I was first reader for a short story contest held in connection with our local science fiction convention. The idea was that I would pick the three best entries and let our guest of honor decide which should receive first, second, and third prize.
Unfortunately, there were only two stories that were even close to being decent. One was a rather fun story that was only adequately written. The other was a beautifully written piece in which not an awful lot happened (reminds me of the stories wbriggs described).
There was no doubt in my mind which should receive first prize, but the guest of honor, while agreeing with me that the writing in the one was beautiful, felt that story was more important, and gave first prize to the only adequately written story.
When I contacted the author of the second prize story, I told her to send it to ASIMOV'S immediately. She did, and Gardner Dozois bought it. The first prize story never did sell because the author never did improve the wordsmithing.
My point? A great story can cover a multitude of writerly sins, but you've got to have some wordsmithing, too. And for some markets, great wordsmithing can also cover writerly sins. The goal should be to do both well.
quote:
When I get published and famous, I plan to continue participating in crit groups.
Multiple award winner Connie Willis thinks the way you do, Elan.
quote:
Multiple award winner Connie Willis thinks the way you do
Good! Maybe she'll let me into her crit group. 
I'd love to rub shoulders with the published and proud in hopes that some of that talent and/or luck would rub off!
I like the theory that you know everyone in the world within 6 people. That means I am close to being able to schmooze with editors because they know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows me. (After all, I know someone who's sister's horse was stabled next to Mr. Ed. If that isn't schmoozing with a celebrity, I don't know what is!)
But drat it, I'll probably have to rely on talent to get in the door with an editor. Now, THAT could take a while. *sigh*
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited July 27, 2005).]
djvdakota
(Anyone else? Any others to add?) 
My wife got me a subscription to a certain leading short story magazine, plus we purchased a newsstand copy of another. On the whole we have been shocked and disappointed.
Kathleen's post about the prose being good, is noted. Some of the pieces have impressive descriptive qualities. The plot, however, is weak. Sometimes, I have to strain to even figure out where the dejection was. The conflict is almost non-existent. When we get to the final paragraph, we feel cheated. There was a particularly "plot coupon" story (where the character had to collect different objects for the story to end) which seemed playboyish and shallow.
Anytime I find a good story, it feels like I uncovered gold. I often feel safer sticking to novelists I know, who continue to put out good books. I've been extremely happy with Canadian Robert Sawyer. His short story "Shed Skin" was excellent (Analog).
There is a pact writers should be making with their readers. Particularly in our current situation where less books are being sold each year.
John
*I shall never believe I am smarter or better than the editor(s) and whine/complain/verbally abuse them, leaving my work to go out unproofed.
quote:
I often feel safer sticking to novelists I know, who continue to put out good books.
I am so disapointed with what's out there. But mostly in the short fiction relm. Especially after hanging out at Liberty Hall. Because now I know there are waaaay better writers out there.
*I will strive to write my very absolute best, and then better, and edit until my face turnes blue*
*submit...submit...submit...and then submit again*
*Always hang with writers that are ten times better than me* ...shouldn't be too hard.
I keep wanting to go on and on about Shimmer! I will just say this:
1. I don't like a lot of what I read in publications, both top markets and smaller, though for different reasons. That's a big reason why I wanted to start a magazine. (The most important reason: I thought it would be fun. It is.)
2. I've read enough stories that I really liked here (and elsewhere) to convince me that there were enough good authors writing the kind of fiction I like to fill a magazine; they're just not showing up in the top markets often enough for my taste.
3. We read stories blind and make our decision not knowing whether the author has a suitcase full of Nebulas or if this is the author's very first submission. I like this model very much, because it allows us to focus on the stories and the kind of fiction that interests us.
I don't want to take over the topic! Sorry!
[This message has been edited by yanos (edited July 28, 2005).]
One thing about the pro markets: They have devoted readership that expects to see more from their favorite authors. One thing I've noticed about readers is that when they find an author they like, they tend to keep reading and reading almost no matter what. They don't notice when their stuff goes downhill. It's another John Grisham novel or it's another James Patterson. Most will acknowledge that some aren't quite as good as other, but they expect their author to be back on form for the next one and in the meantime they will still purchase and read the not quite so good one.
This is what convinces me that crit groups are essential regardless of HOW successful you are. Writing is similar to being in love. Sometimes you need a good friend to point out to you that you are too emotionally involved to see that it sucks.
I mean, personally I am striving to work with my internal editor much more. As Newsbys said, the comments that readers have made about my stories are many times things that I had already had little misgivings about but had ignored before getting crits on it. This means that if I can learn to trust my own editor a bit more I can fix those things before anyone else looks at it and save them the trouble.
Also, I don't know if this is good or bad but twice now in emails to me OSC has said that I have grown past needing a crit group and suggested that I stop participating in them. I have not taken this advice, but if at some future time I do, it will be because most of the changes that I make to my work will be the type of thing people consistently point out when they read it; namely things that if I train my inner ear correctly I will find for myself.
Actually my favorite part of participating in things such as hatrack, liberty hall or codex is the camaraderie, and I NEVER want to give that up.
But crit groups are easy to outgrow. You tend to get the same kinds of advice over and over again -- often representing group member's pet peeves rather than real story problems. Most people do not know how to do a wise reader critique, which is what a practiced writer needs. Not osmeone coddling them or bashing them or even suggesting to them how to fix their work. Rather, they need someone to read and simply report, "Gee, that spot on the wall is interesting right now." or "What did you mean here?" or "I don't believe it."
He said in boot camp that any given crit group can work for about a year before it's spent it's usefulness. I can definitely see that. I've had some success with my latest critique group and don't want to give them up, but I do often want a different perspective, someone who can help me go a different direction.
But always, always, always we need wise readers.
I am trying to train my husband to be a wise reader. Part of the problem is that he does not express interest in my writing. If I ask him to read something he sometimes will, but he always acts like he's simply doing me a favor versus enjoying my stories. So at first I didn't always listen to what he would criticize, figuring it was just because of his attitude. But I have come to realize that the things he has problems with are valid and I am learning to trust him a lot more. It's a growth curve.
I'm having trouble with my wise reader right now. I've typically had my husband do it. He did a wise read of my entiree first novel recently. I felt like he had the same attitude as your husband -- he was going me a favor. I didn't feel like he was into it.
Unfortunately now, he's started school gain. He works 40 hours a week. And baby #1 is coming in November. I'm going to have to juggle my schedule to find time to write and I have no idea how I'm going to be able to use him as a wise reader, at least not often and not for projects like novels. So I'm relegated to critiques.
quote:
*I shall never, even if I get as rich and famous as J.K. Rowling, pressure my publisher to print a story that is sub-par.
Submitted shamefacedly,
NewsBys
Autumn, you've brought up an interesting point about critique groups. Or actually, OSC has brought up the point through you. I would love to see him elucidate his point in a brief essay, like the ones in his Writing Class section here on Hatrack. I think it would be very helpful.
So, does autumn contact him or should one of us send an email to his public email address or what? Kathleen?
Congrats Christine on baby #1! Now THAT'S and adventure!
If you only mean, please put your commas in the right place and stop saying "alright," I'm not worried.
If it's beautiful writing . . . I don't strive for this. SF writers and editors keep saying, use the language that most plainly tells the story. Obviously there are great exceptions to this (Vance), but this is mostly what I strive for. Maybe I should pay more attention to turns of phrase.
BTW the stories I was griping about were written plainly, but I since picked up an issue of Abyss & Apex I think it was, and it seems that beautiful imagery does turn them on.
quote:
Any artist...must be like the accomplished fencer.... The fencer must practice and absorb all those exercises of cut, thrust, lunge, and parry which over several centuries have proven their effectiveness. ... But once [the fencer has] attained [this] mastary, then [his] preoccupation must be with the [bout at hand].
It seemed appropriate.
[This message has been edited by Spaceman (edited July 30, 2005).]
http://www.hatrack.com/writingclass/question_form.shtml
and ask why a critique group is only useful for about one year.
If OSC is willing to elaborate on the subject that would be the place for him to elaborate on it.
Fiction writers have to deal with two basic things, and those things are called by various pairs of terms (for example):
story and discourse
content and expression
storytelling and wordsmithing
Not only do fiction writers have to figure out what they are going to tell (and that is where plot and characters and setting and theme and so on come in) but how they are going to tell it (which includes structure and word choice and description and characterization--as opposed to characters--and so on).
ASIMOV'S often publishes stories with stronger wordsmithing than storytelling. ANALOG, on the other hand, tends to publish stories with greater emphasis on storytelling.
A book that might help with this is STORY AND DISCOURSE: NARRATIVE STRUCTURE IN FICTION AND FILM by Seymour Chatman.
Well, I submitted my question. Questions, actually. I had four, one that sounds more like a statement than a question.
It was almost as nerve-racking as sending off a manuscript.
[This message has been edited by Keeley (edited August 01, 2005).]
Everything I could make myself read in one was flowery language conveying stories that didn't make sense. They could compete in the "Do Your Worst" thread on Mike's board, seriously. Argh!
The other had, of 4 stories I read, 3 clunkers and one that was so beautiful it just managed to make the others worthwhile.
I don't think it was always this way. I remember being addicted to Asimov's back in the 70's.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited August 01, 2005).]