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

[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