Gentle Truth.

I recently read a blogpost in which an author had received a form rejection for a submitted story.

The author then stated that he could see why the story had been rejected - it was because he had opened the piece with dialogue rather than description.

While this may be the case, I believe it is extremely unlikely the story was rejected outright simply for this one particular reason. If that was the only problem with the story, wouldn't he have received either a personal rejection or a rewrite request?

Too many writers won't accept their writing is not perfect. Too much time is spent by writers patting each other on the back and telling each other that simply because a piece was rejected, there's nothing wrong with it. Time and time again I see and hear newer writers stating that "it's only one editor's taste" or "it was the wrong market for that piece." And yes, taste and matching markets do come into it. But once the same story has been kicked back a number of times, surely you have to question it. Yes, I know Robert J. Sawyer had a story kicked back 17 times before it was accepted, and it went on to win an Aurora award. J.K Rowling's first book was rejected a dozen times before it was picked up and became a phenomenon. But these are exceptions - and rare ones at that.

Guess what. Some people can't write. Some people will never improve. Most writers can't see the faults in their own work. Some stories are crap. Some stories need rewriting. And some stories should be permanently trunked.

I'm all for encouraging writers. By all means, keep subbing the piece to different markets. But when it's come back a few times, at least wonder why.

Encouragement needs to be balanced by gentle truth.

Four Down, Thirteen To Go?

Writers of the Future has finally announced the winners from Q1, and I must say I was pleased to see Brennan Harvey's name in first place. I wrote a little about him back in April. good to see he just kept submitting. Congratulations, Brennan - and well done to the others.  I, of course, missed out again - but we already knew that.

I've been reading Iterations, by Robert J. Sawyer. I enjoyed it, but I must say I much prefer his long fiction to his short stories. There was, however, one part of the book that I think is essential reading for every budding writer.

In his introduction to the story Lost in the Mail, he mentioned the history of the piece. Not only did it come second place in the Aurora Awards, it also got rave reviews and was selected for reprinting in a number of Anthologies. But it was only originally published after he received 17 rejection slips. Seventeen!  At that stage of his career I'm fairly certain he'd have been submitting only to pro-markets, and yet 17 editors saw fit not to publish a piece that went on to do so well.

So there is hope yet for some of the pieces that I and others hold in high regard. The scary thing is that with the apparent current trend of editors taking 7 or 8 months to respond (even after polite email enquiries) seventeen rejections means it might take 14 years to get this particular story published.

But that's OK - I have to accept that's the system. It'll be worth it in the end, and I still have plenty others simmering along nicely.

Aliens In Australia.

Today I visited an animal park with a bunch of students.

While kangaroos and wallabies and koalas and wombats and the like are nothing new to me, I was once again struck by how bizarre these marsupials are. I know that when Europeans first came to Australia, they were stunned by the diversity and uniqueness of Australian wildlife. In fact when they shipped back a platypus to their British colleagues, or so the legend goes, the scientists back in England thought they were having their collective legs pulled - after all, no creature as bizarre as this one could actually exist.

It's a mammal, but has a bill, lays eggs, has poisonous spikes on its hind legs and lives in and around waterways.  Robin Williams once did a hilarious routine based on these very facts.

But as bizarre as these animals are, I grew up with them. And even overseas visitors seeing them for the first time have seen pictures/read/heard about them.

There's not much out there that's truly weird in a 'not of this world' kind of way. Yes, I know we're still discovering strange creatures under the Antarctic or in the murky depths of the oceans, but for the truly unique, for that animal that causes a moment of complete shock where we are stunned something so bizarre could actually be alive, we'll have to wait for the xenobiologists to return from other planets.

For now I'll just have to rely on the Sci-Fi I read, and my own imagination in trying to create beings that aren't derivative. Lots of stories base themselves on variations of earth animals - insect people and the like.

I must say I've just enjoyed reading a couple of Robert J. Sawyer books where he explores the psychology of being alien. Now that's truly bizzare.

As for me?  Well, it's back to work.  I'm creating a planet populated by oversized wombats with tentacles.

Flash Forward Gets Lost. Read The Book Instead.

On the recommendation of a couple of people, I started watching Flash Forward.

I should like it. But I don't. Even though on paper it seems to have everything I like in a show, it just doesn't work for me. I watched a couple of episodes and found I didn't really care. The actors were pretty average, the overlying romantic arcs, the cardboard characterisation (including the 'cutesy' little kid that speaks exactly like every Hollywood writer thinks normal children speak) and the poor dialogue and unrealistic response to the whole situation became quickly annoying.

It seems to me that it became overly polished, too Hollywood.  It should have been left closer to the original story, or perhaps made into a movie.  As it is I think it's heading towards another Lost. And although I really liked the idea of that program, it just quickly fell apart and became ridiculous.

Much like 2012.  Although I enjoyed the film, most of the characters were stock-standard. I must say Oliver Platt and Jimi Mistry stood out in an otherwise unmemorable cast. Amanda Peet played herself, John Cusack had trouble working up the energy, Woody Harrelson simply channeled Dennis Hopper through the caravan-conspiracy guy from X-Files.  Even though, it was a fun ride - until the last 30 minutes when it all became saccharine, soppy and ram-down-your-throat-preachy. Love one another, group hug. Did you know that spoilt evil kids can change simply because they hold a puppy?  Awwwwwww.

But I have a lot of respect for Robert J. Sawyer, and so I went and purchased the book, Flash Forward.  And boy, what a difference to the show. I can't put it down.

But if I were to flash forward, I wonder what I would see. I know what I'd like to see, but as many of the characters in the book soon discover, I think we're better off not knowing.

Unless I become a famous, rich, well respected author who has a successful show to my name.  Much like Flash Forward.