[Writingworkshop] Deja Rejection

[Neale Morison]

Agreed, wrong is the rightness-challenged word to use. But suppose I
suggested that the trick is to get past their defenses and fool them into
publishing it in spite of themselves.

So the question is not what are we doing wrong in story craft, the question
is "What are they looking for and how do we make sure we give it to them?"

I bought a F&SF as they suggested and have been ploughing through it. I am
never the audience for fantasy. There's a thing about a a bard and a magical
monster child who eats other children. It has a non-explicit but gratuitous
sexual episode. There's a contemplation on religion dressed as sci-fi that
made it through. I'm working on finishing that. They're both a little crude
in the writing, but not confusing.

Simplicity may be a key issue. Maybe you have to make it easy for them in
the first few paragraphs.

So maybe my little idea in Specs of first person that isn't first person was
a mistake. They couldn't be assed to continue reading until they figured it
out.



On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Adam Holland <adam.holland at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm not so sure we're doing anything "wrong".
> we may well be writing excellent stories. ( I'm certain you are, for
> instance).
> But we're just not writing stories that a few people think are the sort of
> stories a very small subset of people ( the dwindling subscriber lists of
> these magazines) are reading.
>
> I'd like to know specifics, too.
>
> If the missing piece is sex, I'm out of luck.  The idea of writing a good
> sex scene frightens me.
> However, if I ever get any serious work on my novel done, I'm pretty sure
> I'm going to have to have at least one.
>
> AH
>
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Neale Morison <neale at nealemorison.com>wrote:
>
>> And in other news, F&SF says 'Thank for you submitting "Specs." but I'm
>> going to pass on it. This tale didn't quite work for me, I'm afraid...'
>> It seems Stacy Friedberg and John Joseph Adams have a similar turn of
>> phrase. About a week since I sent it. At least they turn their rejections
>> around quickly. I'd love to know what their criteria are. I'd love to know
>> the line at which they stopped reading.
>>
>> That's Asimovs and F&SF who regretfully don't want anything to do with
>> Specs. There's not a lot of insight to be gained from these form rejections.
>> We need a way of figuring out what we're doing wrong. Either we give each
>> other brutally nitpicking honest advice or we find someone who will.
>>
>> Working from some good advice in "How Not to Write a Novel", Mittelmark
>> and Newman, I can think of one thing I did wrong in Specs. The bit where he
>> takes a shower and moons the surveillance op and she notices a rash around
>> the pelvic region. It was meant to desexualize the moment and wind up the
>> pathos, but it maybe just like totally grosses people out.
>>
>> Also the technology was a bit pedestrian. Not radical enough. I'm bored
>> with wonder tech, but maybe the alternative, not very different from now
>> tech, is equally boring to some.
>>
>> Also there was no sex.
>> --
>> Neale Morison
>> neale at nealemorison.com
>> http://www.nealemorison.com
>> 35 Frazer St, Leichhardt NSW 2040
>> +61 417 661 427
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Writingworkshop mailing list
>> Writingworkshop at nealemorison.org
>> http://nealemorison.org/mailman/listinfo/writingworkshop_nealemorison.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Writingworkshop mailing list
> Writingworkshop at nealemorison.org
> http://nealemorison.org/mailman/listinfo/writingworkshop_nealemorison.org
>
>


-- 
Neale Morison
neale at nealemorison.com
http://www.nealemorison.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nealemorison.org/pipermail/writingworkshop_nealemorison.org/attachments/20090907/475dfddf/attachment.html>