Deb Coates has a thoroughly wonderful story up at Strange Horizons this week:"Magic in a Certain Slant of Light."
And, um, I don't just say that because I appear to have been Tuckerized. *g*
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
"Tuckerizing" somebody is when you sort of kind of convert one of your friends into a character into a story. *g* I'll give you a hint: my given name is Sarah.
Nora knows that this conversation will eventually inspire Sara to write a series of short stories dealing with the domestic lives of scientists, played out against the background of historic events. Characters will lose what they want most in all the world and science will not help them win it back.
Sarah is a tuckerizer too! WARNING: METAFICTIONAL RECURSION AHEAD.
(Liked the story. Particularly the bit that I don't want to spoil for anyone that hasn't read it. But it made me go 'awww'.)
Shhh, don't tell anyone I said that. It'll ruin my rep as a bastard.
*happy sigh*
Off-topic, re slush reaction
I do see that reading slush is probably very frustrating. I know that after reading through story after poorly-written story, plus the more competent ones that are unsuitable for that market, the writer of each story is lucky to get anything more than a form rejection. I realise that a slush reader only want to spend so much time on each rejection, and that it isn't their job to offer an in-depth critique.
I'd have accepted without comment a form rejection on the story I recently submitted. I wouldn't have been happy, exactly, but I would have *understood* it.
I didn't understand the logic behind your statement: "It didn't work for me", without any further elaboration. *What* was it that didn't work for you? Was it the plot, the writing style, something else?
As a professional author yourself, I thought it was peculiarly unhelpful to turn down a story with a remark that essentially meant 'I didn't like it'. You must be aware from your own experience, surely, that that particular unqualified reaction is one of the most useless things any reader can say to a writer.
If you didn't have the time or inclination for anything more detailed, perhaps a completely impersonal response would actually have made more sense.
If I've over-reacted, I am sorry. I'm not looking for an elaboration on your rejection, and I hope I haven't been obnoxious about this. It's just been bothering me, and I can't stop thinking about it until I've said something.
Re: Off-topic, re slush reaction
"It didn't work for me," is a polite way of saying that the story didn't hang together, for one reason or another, and I suspect you're going to hear it a lot if you persist as a writer. That's not a reflection on your ability as a writer or lack thereof (I just glanced at your info page and you have no name listed, so I have no way of knowing who you are). I've got a pile of rejections here about four inches thick, and I'd guess that half of them say something like "it didn't work."
It's not a form rejection. A form rejection is "isn't quite right for X magazine" or "we've decided not to accept ths story for publication."
"It doesn't work for me" means just what it says; the story didn't work for the editor. The story failed as a narrative, in other words. Either it didn't provide resolution, or the plot didn't hang together, or there were a number of other, more subtle flaws that added up in ways that amounted to the story "not working."
When we say "didn't work," it generally means that we can't find something more specific to say; the story just doesn't work, sorry. It maybe has a gear out of place, or a line of tension that doesn't work, but it's not something we've been able to identify on a reading.
It just doesn't work.
We say "for me," because we know that "working" is subjective. There are nebula-winning stories that don't work for me. I've taken stories that got a "didn't work" from one pro market and sold them unchanged to another pro market.
I'm sorry that I was unable to offer a more detailed comment, but the fact remains--it's not my job to offer pointed commentary on stories as submitted, and many writers would be rather offended if I tried (you might, if you are looking for critique partners, try http://www.critters.org or http://sff.onlinewritingworkshop.com/ ) --and also, sometimes all I can say about a story is "it didn't work for me."
Re: Off-topic, re slush reaction
You're right, I'm relatively new at this - my sincere apologies if I offended you, because that was not I meant to do. I wasn't complaining about the lack of a critique, and I'm very sorry if it sounded like I was.
I do know what a form rejection, and I was making the point that yours wasn't, not saying it was.
Thank you for explaining the wording, I appreciate you taking the time to do that.
Re: Off-topic, re slush reaction
If it's any consolation, the "it just didn't work for me" rejections never go away. *g* I got one that was more or less that this week.
Re: Off-topic, re slush reaction
And, um, I won't offer any comments on my rejections in future. The wonder of the internet, enabling people to make idiots of themselves in front of a ladger audience than they'd normally manage!
I shall go away and stop taking up your time now - but I appreciate you being so gracious about it.
Re: Off-topic, re slush reaction
It is true that you can't learn if you don't ask, after all. *g*
(Anonymous)
I'm really pleased that people like the story. It didn't get out much before I sent it to Strange Horizons so it's great to get feedback.
Honesty compels me to admit that 'Sara' was named 'Sara' before she decided to speak your most excellent words. In fact, I'm not sure I knew your name was Sarah (though it's more than likely that my backbrain knew--it writes most of my stories anyway). Very cool.
And so you don't think I only dropped in to talk about me (though it is a fascinating subject), I've been lurking here for awhile (even linked to your 'show vs tell' entry over on my recently resurrected blog). I'll try to be less a lurker and speak up a little more often 'cuz there's cool writing stuff over here.
Deb
oh. foo.
and where is this secrit blog?
(Anonymous)
Except, uhm, she doesn't have a name. :-)
It occurs to me that no one in that story has a name except off-stage people we don't care about.
The blog is at http://www.iknowiknow.org I think it's also syndicated at LiveJournal
::checking::
yup, right here-- http://www.livejournal.com/users/iknowiknow/
Deb
ANd I'll claim the tuckerizing anyway. *g* So there. *plants a flag in it.*
(Anonymous)
Deb
(Anonymous)
Be Well, Live Well.
S.K.S. Perry
*pounces*