If you have ever did me the honor of critiquing one of pieces, it is likely that you have sampled some of my humor. In about half of the things I write I like to sprinkle in a little levity. This particuliar piece I went all out. Now I have received crits from people in workshops that didn't like it, while most loved it. Humor came be so subjective so pleasing everyone is probably impossible. However, this comment from an editor has left me flummoxed.

quote:

---

Where it falls down (opinion) is that the fun seems to be merely for fun's sake, rather than to explore a more serious issue. Hence, though entertaining, the story ultimately doesn't repay the reader's engagement.

---

Now I find it a bit funny that I didn't take, what is probably considered the laughing stock genre of literature, my Science Fiction story seriously enough. That aside I can't understand why writing a story that the fun seems to be merely for fun's sake or why it wouldn't repay the reader's engagement, be a reason why it wouldn't be welcomed by the public.

Now I'm not crying foul. A rejection is a rejection, but isn't the point of reading a story is so the reader can enjoy it? Writing a humorous Sci-Fi is not easy, but I believe I nailed it in this one.

I wouldn't be the first to complain that what is published in the major magazines is stale. Several things I have critique in hatrack I found to be superior to the majority of the things I read that editors paid top dollar for. One of the stories I just read in the WotF group I would put in that catergory right now.

Anyway, I could use a little advice on where a fun story would be welcomed.

Thank you for your time.

But one thing I did do before I sent that story out was go to duotrope and search for humor-themed publications. That's how I found "From the Asylum".

I think the point your editor may have been trying to make was that "fun +" beats out "fun". If you look at much truly successful humour, it's humour that while being funny sheds light on "real world" issues (Pratchett, for example, became far more successful when he stopped parodying other fantasy for his ideas and started using real-world parallels, though a lot of his humour is still pretty cheap in terms of relying on wacky or "Earth" names).

It's worse when you are beginning to write and you find yourself naturally gravitating towards writing humorous pieces. A lot of serious writers don't like your writing so they can't even get to evaluating your humor.

A double-whammy. Woe is me. I do emphathize.

Put this rejection in the round file, under "hopeless", 'cause humor is subjective, but the guy or gal didn't reject it 'cause he/she didn't think it wasn't funny. No, it was rejected 'cause there was no "serious" subtext. I guess he/she wanted satire as opposed to slapstick.

Forget this rejection, and try it somewhere else.

Hold on...I feel a rant coming on (it's like a sneeze except without the tissue and my eyes stay open--not pretty)...

Rejections like this always bother me. I mean, not me, per se, 'cause I'm arrogant and I don't care, but the editor uses terms like "entertaining", and speaks for all readers when the editor says the piece "doesn't repay the reader's engagement". Yeah, there was opinion in parentheses, but that's lame and half-a$$ed. Editors like this are a big reason why magazines are dying. Every piece has to "say something", when we seem to have forgotten the craft of actually being entertaining.

You guys are great. Thanks for feeling my pain.

That reject was from ASIM. One of the readers compared me to Robert Scheckley, which is nice but does little to further my carreer.

Wow, an etidor's note threw you into a new vobaculary of altered sybabbles.

Isn't it worth considering the editor's comment -- which. surely, is better than a form rejection?

I think humour is extremely hard to do well, and probably even harder to sell. I don't remember the last time I went out to purchase SF humour. I read SF for its philosophical content as much as entertainment and escapism, and for me all those ingredients have to be there for stories to work.

"The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" works for me because it's satire on both the English way of life and on SF tropes. I love Spider Robinson's stuff ("The Lady Slings the Booze" is one of my all-time favourite book titles) because I think it's punny, a taste I'll grant isn't shared universally. (I haven't read Pratchett because his work doesn't tickle my funny bone.)

More often than not, I think humour is a side show in SF stories. The story itself has to be a good one, and can rarely rely on humour alone. The TV series "Firefly" and "Star Trek" regularly involve humour, often in the characters joshing each other; but it's always subsidiary to the main story line which, centrally, "repays the reader's engagement".

It seems to me that the editor is saying the story itself needs to be better in some way. Perhaps it relies too much on the humour.

I did take the editors comment to heart, but do find it odd that a piece that is written for funs sake alone becomes the reason why it gets passed. It does make me wonder if I've been reading for entertainments sake has been wrong the entire time.

Now I don't want to dwell on this. It was rejected, all the complaining in the world won't change that. I will say that Harry Harrison's Bill the Galactic Hero is the funniest thing I ever read and was written for funs sake alone, and it spawned a series of sequels.

I do agree that humor is very difficult to sell. In my opinion I believe that is partly because way too many in this Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre take themselves way too seriously. If there is a place where the writing and subject matter should be loose, it's SF & F. Funny how the opposite appears to be the case.

Was it? Do you know that for sure?

The tone of this thread seems suprisingly bitter for someone who got a rejection that actually included encouraging comments and a specific reason why the piece wasn't included There's ASIM, doing very nicely and up close to 40 issues (wayyyy more than many hopeful markets can boast) and you're telling us that its editorial attitudes are wrong, and that editors shouldn't profess to speak for their readership (whereas you seem to feel yourself qualified to do so)? Think about what you're saying here. An editor's job IS to make decisions on behalf of their readership, and they do so knowing that if they fail to make those judgements correctly, their product will fail. So you take a successful product and criticise its editorial slant, from the perspective of... what?

"It does make me wonder if I've been reading for entertainments sake has been wrong the entire time."

Oh, come on. Quit the melodrama and stop feeling sorry for yourself over ONE rejection. If you're serious (ho ho) about writing, you will get HUNDREDS of rejections, and many will be FAR harsher than that. Disagree with them by all means - but pretending you know better than editors is a pointless and foolish distraction, unless you think you can start your own paying market and run it better.

And one reason humour is very difficult to sell? Because a huge amount of humour - some of it very good humour - is out there for free, distributed on the internet through thousands of channels. Why would the editor of a paying market try and compete on such an uneven playing field?

quote:

---

"I will say that Harry Harrison's Bill the Galactic Hero is the funniest thing I ever read and was written for funs sake alone."

Was it? Do you know that for sure?

---

Yes I am quite sure that it was the funniest thing that I ever read.

Before this fire rages out of control, I am going to apologize. I was just sharing a comment from an editor and thought it was interesting and quaint. Not saying he was wrong although my comments suggested I implied it.

I am fully aware that editors have the right the buy and reject everything that comes their way, and I am grateful for any comments they write, regardless how harsh or friendly they can be. I submit in the hopes of a sale but also am interested on how it was received. I got what I asked for.

So before I am further tagged as a bitter ungrateful sorehead, I am hereby declaring that I am very grateful to all editors that take the time to read my work, and extremely grateful to ASIM in particuliar.

I didn't see a whole lot of bitterness, just some understandable confusion that the editor liked the piece, but passed on it because it had no subtext. It was "entertaining", but didn't "repay the reader's engagement"--whatever that means.

I'm quite content in saying disregard that editor's opinion, and just because he/she gave an opinion instead of a form letter doesn't mean the person should get Editor of the Year award.

Look: We're all trying to sell our stuff, and I understand where snapper is coming from. I've got a story coming out in a magazine in July that was passed over 3 times because it was "slow", or "not quite what we're looking for", or, "familiar". It was finally accepted because of "characterization". So one person's "slow" is another's "characterization". And the thing is each one of those other editors that passed on it may have been right.

TS and tchern, I think you guys were a little hard on snapper. I didn't read bitterness in his comment - it seemed more like perplexity to me. I've never seen him take himself too seriously, and he generally lets things roll of his back. Then again, maybe I read you guys wrong.

Snapper, this part is for you. Unlike the folks over in "Random Musings", I do not listen to the radio often, unless it is talk radio or classical music (without words to sing along to). I do listen to audio books though. Currently, I am listening to Fragile Things, written and narrated by Neil Gaiman. I expect to become a big fan in the very near future!

When I listened to this today, I was reminded of this thread and felt that I needed to share it with you. I will try to paraphrase/transcribe it to the best of my ability. I hope this helps:

"Forbidden Brides of the Faceless Slaves in the Secret House of the Night of Dread Desire" -
..."One [editor Gaiman knew] sniffed, told me it wasn't his kind of thing, and he didn't honestly think it was actually anybody's kind of thing."...Another editor he knew said, "The reason it would never be printed was that it was facetious nonsense." Gaiman put it away.

Twenty years later, when asked to submit something gothic for an anthology, he found it, dusted it off, tidied it up a little bit, and sent it off. One reviewer agreed that it was "facetious nonsense". However, "'Forbidden Brides' was picked up by several Best of the Year anthologies and was voted Best Short Story in the 2005 Locus Awards."

He sums up the experience by stating, "Sometimes you just show stories to the wrong people, and nobody's going to like everything."

Poignant............

quote:

---

I don't think this thread is the place to rant about the demise of print mags, valid though the complaints are.

---

Regarding sci-fi humor, I have found that some of the best sci-fi movies tend to have strong elements of humor:

Star Wars
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Star Trek
E.T.
Ghostbusters
Men in Black
Galaxy Quest
Escape from New York
Transformers
The Incredibles
Back to the Future
Independence Day

These might not all be classics, but I found most of them to be enjoyable at some level.

I do understand and agree with your comment:

quote:

---

The story itself has to be a good one, and can rarely rely on humour alone.

---