The Hatrack Ready for Market Club

Not so much a contest, but a way of encouraging each other to get stories ready for market.

The concept is to encourage each other and provide a kind of feedback that will build the writer's confidence that "this story is ready for market".

The principle is that everyone gets feedback, but since these stories are almost ready for market they should not need line-by-lines or detailed crits. The idea is therefore to provide useful feedback in a manner that's quick for readers and useful for writers.

Another principle is that the link JeanneT shared to Mike Resnick at Baen said we have to be better than established writers. Hence, the rating scales for stories have "better than Heinlein" as the top grade.

Here's how it might work:

Each month everyone gets to offer one story for critque. Short story or novel, but of course SSs will get more attention because they're less work.

Everyone grades first 13 of all stories submitted as follows:

3 - would read on enthusiastically
2 - would read on with caution
1 - would not read on

Each grade includes a one liner (one sentence or bullet point) with the reason for the grade.

Everyone reads one or more stories (as many as they like but at least one) and grades the story as follows:

Story overall:
3 - Better than Heinlein/my favourite published author of today
2 - As good as the best authors published today (but not quite good enough)
1 - Okay but not as good as published authors

Story characteristics: (3 = better than Heinlein, 2 = average, 1 = weak)
1 character development
2 plot
3 satisfactory ending
4 milieu
5 willing suspension of disbelief
6 unique/never been done before
7 writing style
8 dialogue
9 action
10 understandable ("I get it")

Thus, each story gets a 1/2/3 score on each of 10 attributes.

I considered including grammar and spelling as attributes and decided not to because that should be good--and if it isn't, I imagine few will bother reading or grading it.

A story that is truly ready for market will score straight 3s because we think it's better than the best in every respect.

Of course they'll score less in practice, but such a system might help us to see at a glance where our stories are succeeding and where they need improvement.

For readers, scoring should not be too laborious.

If a story scores weakly, the writer could take it back through workshopping with the first 13 in Fragments & Feedback.

Any takers? Useful? Useless? Better ideas?

To ease administrative burden we don't do it blind but ask everyone to be nice, and be honest. We publish the results where everyone can see, so we get a friendly competitive element but no winners or losers. Also, we all see what works for this (representative) group of readers.

If there are takers, I'll propose some more detailed ideas for the mechanics after we get the ansibles and guns blazing done.

Cheers,
Pat
 

Are we too judge and grade the story by the first 13 only? That's tough. I do like the idea but when you say ready for market, do you mean any market? Submitting a story to Byzarium is not on equal footing to lets say Asimov.
Trying to say a story is good or bad on the first 13 lines is imprecise. How about we do something like this.

Set up a group where everyone is committed to reading a submission a week, or will at least commit to reading three stories a month. We put up one ready for market story to read a week. And by ready for market I mean SFWA (not including the WOTF contest).
We could set a criteria for membership in the group. Something like you must have made at least two sales to two seperate publications.
We could put up three 13 line submissions. The one that gets the most votes gets to be critiqued by the group. A moderator will be needed (we could rotate the job). The goal is to get a hatrack member a sale in the big times.
What do you think? Too complicated?
 

I have several stories that I feel are at least close to being ready but not quite that I'd love more feedback on than I've been able to get. Possibly others are in a similar situation.

However, I wouldn't commit to one story a week or even three a month. One a month would be the most I would be willing to consider. And I think more than that might tend to over-whelm people with critiquing.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 02, 2008).]
 

Interesting.

Tough to guess how we'd compare to an editor's judgment.
 

quote:

---

However, I wouldn't commit to one story a week or even three a month. One a month would be the most I would be willing to consider. And I think more than that might tend to over-whelm people with critiquing.

---

How about one every other week? Once a month means twelve for one year. We could also set a upper word count limit. 7500 words and under is considered short story. I suggest we make that the ceiling.
 

You are welcome to join Liberty Hall and do it there, but that's not really the point, is it. The point is that you have a good idea that is worth pursuing. Go for it.

Perhaps "club" is the wrong word. Maybe "exchange" or something would be better, to avoid making commitments we can't keep.

We'd each grade all the first 13s.

Then, on the basis of the first 13s, we'd each select at least one story for a full read and the detailed grading.

(Some stories would not get selected by anyone, and that would suggest that either the first 13 wasn't good enough, or the other stories were rather better--an indicator itself perhaps that the story isn't competitive enough yet.)

No entry criteria in terms of previous sales, the idea would be to help each other make that first sale. (But, those with sales under their belts would of course be welcome to use the exchange to help that second or third sale.)

And yes, we'd be grading in terms of professional markets, SFWA standards. (Dunno about WOTF or other comps, but don't feel strongly about excluding them--the good ones ought to be approaching SFWA standards anyhow, right?)

We would not be as accurate as real editors, and editors and their markets are different from each other. But, we have at best one or two real editors at Hatrack (most notably Kathleen, and it wouldn't be right to ask them to take a lead role in something like this) so we're the best we have. Most of us are well-read and current, and some of us are slush readers at places like FFO, so we ought to be a reasonable estimator of what's being published today. (And, maybe, grading like this would help us to get into the minds of editors.)

It would not be necessary to commit to offering a story a month. We'd run it monthly for all comers. If you felt like grading the offerings but not submitting anything, that would be fine. (But if you submit a story, you have to grade the other first 13s and one complete story.)

On the frequency: I think a regular event would help some of us (me at least) to set deadlines and work to them. I thought one a month because I don't think I can crank more than that. If it's too frequent, there's a risk there won't be enough submissions to each event for a decent volume of grading to happen. I'd suggest starting with one a month and, if volumes are high, increasing to one every two weeks.

I wondered about limiting to short stories and a word count but I know there are some who prefer to work longer lengths. I'd suggest seeing how it goes without a max word count. After all, if I saw a good first 13 for a novel I'd read it, maybe as well as one or two of the shorts. Grading a story having read it will be but a few minutes work, regardless of its length. If lots of novels get offered and few get read, we could discuss incentives for getting them read.

For the mechanics, yes, we'd need either a password-protected forum or just use an e-mail list; dunno--preferences anyone? Either way, since we'd be dealing with full works ready for publication, that element would require careful management to preserve first publication rights.

(I wondered about applying for membership at Liberty Hall, Mike, but I've kinda grown accustomed to hanging out here at Hatrack.)

Cheers,
Pat

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited July 03, 2008).]

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited July 03, 2008).]
 

I like your plan, Pat.
 

Cheers,
Pat
 

The idea is good. Sadly, I'm committed to three novels right now (a collaboration, a fantasy--which started out as my Q3 WotF entry--and a Historical Fiction), and I haven't written much more than short stories in a year or more.

[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited July 04, 2008).]
 

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 04, 2008).]
 

[This message has been edited by debhoag (edited July 04, 2008).]
 

How about if those whose posts are off-topic and who want them removed edit them to say "please remove," then I'll remove them? And I'll remove this post as well as Mike's request that posts be removed. (I hope that makes sense.)
 

First, I'm not so sure about that "Better than Heinlein" standard (I'm definitely not a Heinlein fan).

Anyway, to the original idea, the one problem I would see is that many think that their story is ready to send off to a publisher when it really isn't. I've seen a lot of posts in the first 13 lines threads that seem to be "I just jotted these lines down for a story that popped into my head. . . ." Personally, getting a reader is too hard---we are all pressed for time. If I ask someone to read for me, I'll make sure it is a good deal more than "first draft."

How about a "rejection club?" You can only post work that has been previously rejected by a publisher. That will ensure that it is "ready to publish" quality. It might also help us, as writers, to understand why it was rejected.

I posted 13 lines from a story that was just rejected. I got some good ideas from the posts. Most important, the fact that I already submitted it to a publisher shows that I am serious about it and that I have worked to get it into the best format. Now, I just need a bit of help to give me an objective view of the piece.
 

And B) Obviously, I'm not as funny in the middle of the night as I think I am.

[This message has been edited by debhoag (edited July 04, 2008).]
 

One. I've worked on it to the point where I don't want to do any more.

Two. I'm satisfied with the way it is.

Three. I've printed out a copy to send off.

Most of my stuff doesn't get to Point One, actually...the inverse of Point Two sometimes comes before I've even finished one draft of something. Then it vanishes into my files until I think better of it.
 

I'm not sure that that isn't a problem though. JBU is infamous (famous?) for liking up-beat stories. I was recently told one of my stories that I had used feedback from their slush bar to edit was too "sweet." Hmmmmmm I didn't think it was sweet but it ended up with a much more upbeat ending than it started out with.

But I'm not sure the story is really that sweet. (It's a story that got the HM at WotF)

Sorry. I'm wandering here.

Anyway, obviously, I'm interested. I'm not sure if limiting it to stories that have gotten rejected will improve the quality, but it would limit it somewhat to people who are actually interested in getting published.

 

So... how do we go about setting this up?
 

The Liberty Hall discussion wasn't entirely irrelevant because they do have a similar concept going there. Maybe one day I'll visit too. For now, Hatrack meets my needs, I know the people--and I know who's judgment I value; it takes time to establish that--and for me another crit group would be another excuse for procrastination.

The "Better than Heinlein" standard is simply a device for saying "better than the best", because Mike Resnick's guidance was that we have to be better than established authors. We could define the "3" grade as "better than the best" but I have a feeling that aspiring to be better than your own favourite author is more of a motivation than an abstract "better than the best". I picked Heinlein because he's widely regarded as one of our best SF authors but I understand he's not everyone's taste. Also I think "Better than Heinlein" grabs attention. There is a slight downside to Heinlein in that he's not a modern-day author ...

Umm, should the standard be "Better than OSC" ?!

In the rules we'll make it clear that you pick your own favourite author to grade by and, if you like, mention him or her in your grading. (Use one author for all the grading, though; don't make life too difficult.)

On rejections:

The July/August edition of Analog includes a piece called "The Analytical Laboratory" where editor Stanley Schmidt reports the annual poll of stories in the previous year. He says that Ben Bova told him "when he was turning over the reins" that "strong stories and articles tend to polarise people. Pieces that don't generate any hate don't generate much love either." I think we need to keep that in mind when we evaluate crits of our work. I for one do not try to satisfy all crits, and regard some of the 'hate it' remarks as encouraging because they mean the story doesn't compromise.

I think adding a rejections club feature would be grand. It would be really interesting to see how stories we've graded fare in the markets and would tell us something about the accuracy and value of our gradings--or, the gradings of some individuals. (We might find that some of us are better at predicting success than others.) Such a grading system might also help the author of a rejected work to see where's it's better than Heinlein and where it needs to improve. Also, if it gets a polarised selection of 'love it/hate it' reactions, that might indicate it should simply be shopped around more in hope of a 'love it' reaction from an editor.

Thus, perhaps the rejections club would work like this: post the rejected story for grading but without telling us it was rejected (to avoid skewing our grades somehow); then, in a separate thread somewhere (to be defined) post the first 13, the grades and the rejection letter, asking for further crits.

On readiness of stories for market, and qualifications for joining:

Yes, some stories will be submitted that are not ready for reading, let alone the markets. But I'd rather be inclusive and accept all comers than have qualifications like "it must have been workshopped", or "it must have at least one rejection" because the more rules we have, the more someone has to monitor and enforce them; I'm not sure that everyone wants to workshop every story, although I'm sure that's a Good Idea; and I for one would value using this system to avoid submitting to market and waiting six weeks for a standard, unhelpful, discouraging rejection.

I don't think it will cost us much in terms of effort or time to deal with offerings that are sub-standard. The first 13 will go up, everyone will score it 1, and few if any will read and grade it. The effort we invested was merely to read its first 13 (in some cases the first line or two are enough) and write "1".

If there's too much time wasting with inadequate submissions I'm sure Hatrackers will find a way of letting their authors know.

Next steps:

I'm pleased there's interest. This weekend I'm dealing with the Ansibles and Guns Blazing contest so early next week I'll post a charter for the club which will refine the rules in the light of discussions above, including something for the rejections club. I'll also suggest how we'll do it using Hatrack topics and threads for your consideration. And, of course, we'll be looking to set it up in such a manner as to be minimal admin work for all involved and to gain Kathleen's approval.

Cheers,
Pat
 

And surely all of us get form rejections at least sometimes. I know I just got one from RoF. So I'm not sure that posting rejections is always that helpful. Sure, I frequently get personalized rejections but I don't feel they necessarily mean more than form ones. In fact, my strongest stories go to the top markets where forms are the most likely. I don't want what kind of rejection I got to influence the feedback on the story is what I'm saying. That's the big problem I have with the concept of posting the rejection itself.

Edit: For personal preference, I'd prefer to have it not a "rejection" club or whatever we call it. That means we've already spent months with it at a market (and blown that market) when it could still possibly be improved. I admit that it risks putting things up for critique that aren't ready for market yet and that's a hard judgement call at times.

This shouldn't be for finding grammatical errors and typos though. I think that's agreed upon.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 05, 2008).]
 

I think the main focus is a way of grading stories in terms of readiness for market, whether submitted or not.

Cheers,
Pat
 

Edited: Acutally the original "Ready for the Market Club" was a better title.

[This message has been edited by Tiergan (edited July 05, 2008).]