More On The Way.

It was fabulous to receive a story acceptance overnight. It was even more fabulous than usual because the editor added, "This was a really good story, btw."

For a number of reasons I haven't written or submitted much for a while, so this was a nice surprise. I sent it out a few months ago, because I wanted to get something out, and this is a good story that deserves a home, and had just been kicked back from a major publisher with some good feedback.

I'll share more when I can. Watch this space.

I recently received other publishing news I don't think I'm allowed to share yet, exciting though it is. And this is good stuff. I'm looking forward to announcing this one.

On top of all this I had some other good news today, which won't mean anything to anyone else but is important to me. And then I bumped into a colleague I used to work with but haven't seen for a long time, and finally received email from a much respected and admired friend and mentor I haven't seen or heard from for even longer.

It's been a good time all round.

Rewriting.

I've seen a number of writers who push the Heinlein rule of never re-writing stories. As I've said before, I'm not a huge fan of Heinlein's writing rules. I believe they worked for Heinlein at a time in his life when he was required to churn out short stories in order to make some money, but recently these rules have been lifted to some kind of mystical status among writers, chanted like a sacred mantra that will guarantee money, fame and success for those who follow.

I have a couple of pretty good stories that I wrote a year or more ago but had no takers. These are stories which I quite like, but with the development of my writing skills and better understanding of story construction I can now see the flaws in them.

A spare hour here, a spare hour there, a quick re-write and out they go into the publishing world.

I've recently sold two stories that went through this process, and I'm thrilled to soon be able to see them in print. And that's much better than languishing hidden in a metaphorical bottom drawer.

Authentic?

After spending thirteen years on the force, I think I have some idea how an investigation is undertaken. As a result I have a hard time reading crime fiction as very few detective or police novels ring true to me. I just don't believe them.

On a wider scale, I've recently read a few short stories that simply annoyed me because the characters didn't ring true either. Something felt wrong - their actions and reactions or thought processes seemed unlikely. Even entire situations asked for a much greater suspension of disbelief than I was prepared to give.

Some short stories require certain actions from characters in order to drive the plot, and these never work for me. Others require a situation to occur that is all too unlikely, and again that is where the writer loses me.

In my real life, I've had the most amazing co-incidences. My wife moved to Australia from the UK only to discover that her long-lost relative (who they didn't even know was in Australia) had a grandchild in my class at school. Afterwards people said "You wouldn't read about it."

That's true. Co-incidence in fiction doesn't work with the reader because it's recognised as being created in order to move the story along.

I still have a long way to go with my writing, but I think I'm getting better at creating characters and situations that are believable.

Well, at least as believable as a Bug-Eyed Monster from Planet-X can be.

Heritage.

I've always found it curious that companies advertise how long they've been in existence. A store that has been running since 1758, or the ubiquitous on generic t-shirts "Since 1987", or "Established 1926" - all as if it mattered to the consumer. I mean, it's hardly the same company it once was, is it?

In some cases it's still in the same family, but of course with companies that are of some age, it's crazy to think any of the original employees or managers are still there. In these days of multi-national takeovers, the company you see is probably operated by a conglomeration based in Europe or the USA. And with companies that manufacture or sell products, it is extremely unlikely they make or stock the same products they originally did. And if they do, I can almost guarantee the recipes, ingredients and manufacture methods have changed beyond all recognition.

So why are companies so proud of their heritage? I figure it's simply an appeal to the consumers' sense of nostalgia, old fashioned values and a sense that if they've been doing something for so long, they must have got it right.

I was thinking about this recently. Steve Davidson has acquired the rights to Amazing Stories magazine, and has successfully published its first issue (in order to satisfy legal requirements over the acquisition of the brand) and plans to launch properly next year sometime. (originally as an e-publication, but I truly hope they quickly include a paper release as well) While I thought this re-launch was a good thing, a friend pointed out that it held absolutely no connection to the original magazine, although from all initial reports it seemed as though Davidson was approaching the 'reboot' in the spirit of the original. Later, we discovered that he put together an editorial advisory board that included four past Amazing Stories editors. The links to the past were stronger then I'd imagined. 

But this got me thinking. Analog and Fantasy & Science Fiction aren't owned by the original companies and have both changed ownership several times. Even Asimov's, in it's short thirty-five year history, has changed owners and editors more than once. So why do we accept change in some 'institutions' and not in others? The recent debacle with Weird Tales has shown that a change of ownership does not always continue a tradition, and I suspect the brand name has been damaged more than the owners realise. Perhaps it would have been wise to have kept Ann VanderMeer as editor. I certainly have no plans to submit there until the dust has cleared and I see their new editorial direction. Other publications which have changed format or lost regular schedules or lessened in quality have completely dropped off my submission radar. The big three, as mentioned above, are my current focus.

I think it has to do with the vision. F&SF, Analog and Asimov's continue to produce quality magazines in line with a tradition. They continue to attract the best writers, the best stories and best artists. All while continuing to move with the times.

And I suspect the re-launched Amazing Stories has the same ethos. I wish it all the best.

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.

Follow Your Heart, Not Your Head.

The rewrites are going well, and I should have them done in the next few days. On top of that I have new ideas for a couple of markets coming up soon, and further development on a couple of older ideas.

One piece of advice I received recently from an editor (with an invitation to rewrite and re-submit - Yay!) was not to force a rewrite.  Take my time with it and allow it to happen organically, just as the original piece happened.

I've tried writing pieces in ways I think they should be written (Including more similes and inner dialogue - just because I think I should be writing more) and then, without fail, my readers/critiquers always seem to pick those parts as not working.

One thing I've learned is to trust your own instincts. And go with them.

I suppose that applies to a lot more than writing too.