[Writingworkshop] Deja Rejection

[Adam Holland]

. But suppose I suggested that the trick is to get past their defenses and
fool them into publishing it in spite of themselves.

Love it.


> 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?"
>
> or, how do we trick them into thinking what we want to write is what
they're looking for?

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

I agree.  get them involved / hooked.


>
> 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.
>
>
LOL  "But thinking is *hard!"*

>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Writingworkshop mailing list
> Writingworkshop at nealemorison.org
> http://nealemorison.org/mailman/listinfo/writingworkshop_nealemorison.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nealemorison.org/pipermail/writingworkshop_nealemorison.org/attachments/20090907/b78f5746/attachment.html>