On Reviews and Meta-Reviews

[dr_phil_physics]

Writers of the Future Volume XXV

Diabolical Plots posted a review of the most recent WOTF XXV anthology. Frank Dutkiewicz also reviewed "our" WOTF XXIV back in September, just about the time I posted my review of WOTF XXV. Both the volume XXIV and XXV reviews cover all the stories and are pretty thorough.

First Rule Of Reviews

"Do not argue with reviews." Nope, that's not my issue here. Frank is entitled to his opinion and I appreciate the thoroughness of his work. No, what I wanted to talk about was the fact that (a) Frank disagreed with the WOTF XXV Gold Award decision and (b) then went back and analyzed his own thinking about it. In particular he felt that another story was much more amazing and stayed with him longer... in his opinion. But in reading his meta-reviewing, I think that the very aspect of the winning story which he didn't like, was probably the feature which bowled over the judges. When I looked back at my own, less thorough, review of WOTF XXV, I noted that I didn't find the Gold Award story the best either -- but that takes nothing away from Emery Huang's achievement. Personal opinions are just that -- personal and opinions.

We see this all the time with our stories. You may belong to a crit group where some of the writers "don't get" your stories. That doesn't make either you or them wrong, or right. An editor rejects a story you're sure would be a good fit to their market. But you're neither right or wrong. The editor is using a larger metric in deciding whether to buy your work. It's why we accumulate hundreds of rejections, because it takes a confluence of events and an alignment of the stars for a good story to get sold. That 12 or 13 stories show up in the Writers of the Future anthology each year, after they've slogged through thousands of entries, means that the judges have labeled these the best at a particular time with a particular set of judges.

And I'm okay with that.

I would rather hate living in a world in which there WAS a standard for writing. A website where you could submit your work and it could be run through a computer or passed in front of a committee and get a score. And then that score would determine when and where it was sold. Which stories would be "better" than others for all time. Because such a score would be arbitrary and subjective from the get-go.

Also Rans

Indeed, it is the very subjectiveness of the process which I believe is the reason that Writers of the Future bothers to let people know that they are Honorable Mentions (and Silver Honorable Mentions), Semi-Finalists and Finalists. These are the good stories, the better stories. This is where the real competition rests, between these stories. Winning is great. But in the end I don't envy the judges each quarter, or for the Gold Award, having to decide which stories are "better" and "best".

As for reviews, they serve their purpose when people use them to buy -- or not -- a work. The very things that one reviewer might not like, I find myself saying sometimes, "gee, I think that might work -- I'd like to read that story". And Your Mileage May Vary.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Dr. Phil

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for reading it, Doc. In my world, your two cents is worth a buck and a quarter. Now if you could be so kind to allow me a portion of your journal.

The owner and master of ceremonies for Diabolical Plots, Dave Steffen, has informed me that on at least one site there has been a discussion on my review and a few thought my comments were a personal attack. I was afraid that might happen.

The last half of my review was based on two authors and their stories. The winner and one story I think deserves further consideration for an additional award (Hugo, Nebula, Campbell).

Now as far as Emery Huang's story, I do not think it didn't deserve the gold award. It wasn't my call to make. The judges had their reasons and Emery deserved the prize for meeting their criteria but I am puzzled by their decision. You may be right that aspect of the story that I didn't like was the reason that bowled them over, but I hope that you are wrong. I'd rather think that I missed what made it special. When I read one authors journal during the workshop portion of the contest, it appeared that it was a forgone conclusion that 'The Garden of Tain Zi' was going to win. No explanation why (leak from the judges, a consensus among the writers, a lucky guess).

I didn't hate Emery's story (if I did I would have gave it a D grade), in fact I liked his future world. I thought it was cool when he created a world without national governments yet still had a thriving global economy. Well thought out. The only reason I was so harsh with it was because it won. He didn't just beat out 3 strong entries but thousands. A story that does that should have left me saying 'Wow'!

As I eluded to in my review, I can't remember my personal favorite ever winning the top prize. In fact, I can recall a past issue or two where I couldn't finish 'the best' one. What I did discover, when researching others opinions on WOTF 25, was practically no one was 'wow'ed by it. The only one that thought it was the best in the anthology was (ironically) Jordan Lapp.

So I have no ax to grind, feel no ill will, or believe a miscarriage of justice occurred, when it comes to Emery Huang. Instead I offer my congratulations to him. As you said in your review, Well done.

[dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com]

I'm so sorry that people aren't reading what you WROTE. As I pointed out, I really appreciated the thoroughness of your discussion. And I still think that some of the elements that you didn't like about the Gold Award story were probably the things the judges liked. Thank goodness WOTF doesn't give out only one prize, because all such decisions in both contests and commercial markets are ultimately a matter of opinion.

And just in case anyone thinks I'm shilling for you or Diabolical Plots, may I remind the jury that you didn't like my story the year before and I still respect your opinion. (grin)

Dr. Phil

[steffenwulf.livejournal.com]

Regarding the HMs and semis to judge the good vs. better vs. best--Keep in mind that those are also geared toward this particular publication, and everything below finalists are judged by only a single person's tastes too.

At least that's what I keep telling myself, continually frustrated at not getting HMs despite sending in my best work...

[dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com]

Oh absolutely. I think that the first cut is for competence and then they look for stories. I've sent in stories that I was sure would win or at least place high. One of those completely struck out. I look at my early stories and I know now, I think, why they didn't even place. But it's hard to quantify.

It is going to be subjective. And I know a number of authors who've never been the right fit. And others who've won on their opening shot. Even if I'd never placed in the contest, I would still support it for what it does for encouraging writers and keeping interest up in SF/F.

Dr. Phil

[steffenwulf.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, I support WotF wholeheartedly. Not only do they encourage writers and keep up interest in SF/F, but I applaud the entire concept of looking only at new voices. Not only that, but I like a much larger portion of the stories in WotF than in any other publication I've yet to come across. I suspect that has much to do with each one being a relatively new voice who had to put a whole lot of blood sweat and ink into their creation.

So, even though I've yet to have any success I have no qualms about buying a copy of the anthology every year, and recommending it to others. And I'll continue to submit a story every quarter until I win or I make enough other sales to make myself ineligible. I just wish I understood why I haven't managed a single HM yet. Since the stories are judged anonymously it must be something about my writing itself, but I just don't know what.

[dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com]

You can drive yourself nuts trying to outthink judges or editors. (grin) Ah, the fine art of rejectomancy.

Of course, what you suggested above is also key. Keep submitting until you have enough pro sales you place out of the contest. Any way you look at it, the contest has encouraged you to forge ahead. (grin) Indeed, I cheerfully acknowledge that nearly half the short stories in my Invenstory came from those quarterly deadlines. And even the stories I've sent back a second time, you can do that if they don't get a Semi-Finalist or Finalist, have benefited from reviewing and editing. Two of my three Finalists were previously Quarter-Finalists, including "A Man in the Moon". Both of those stories also picked up 3000 words in the process. (big-grin)

Dr. Phil

[(Anonymous)]

Nope. Not taking your comments as a shilling at all. In fact, I am honored by them. It is only my opinion and I think your comments on them do them justice.
As far as your story last year, I did like it. Didn't love it but I thought it was worthy of publication. It was as good as anything I've read in professionally published magazines.
If I were to compare it to an entry in this years anthology it would be 'The Assignment of Runner ETI' by Fiona Lehn (one of your favorites). Solid and strong, just a bit long.

[dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com]

Wasn't trying to fish for compliments. (grin) And funny how you'd compare my story in XXIV to a story I really liked in XXV. In other words, taste and preference is obviously going to be a component.

The big problem I worry about is that it becomes a spectator sport to try to decide "What is the perfect WOTF story?" You're going to get a certain range just from the selection process. After that, there are too many judges involved and too many writers. Which, when you think about it, is just about right.

Dr. Phil

I didn't realize...

[(Anonymous)]

You know, I didn't realize both you and Al had stories in the same WOTF book. I think he's sending me a copy.

- Eric

Re: I didn't realize...

[dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com]

See, if you read our blogs (http://dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com/233093.html) more often... (grin)

Dr. Phil