A CLOSER LOOK AT ON SPEC EDITORS: ROBIN CARSON

After my last post, it occurred to me that people might like a deeper look into what makes each of us On Spec editors tick. I've always found that my the greatest successes in placing work have come from understanding the personal tastes and quirks of an editor. First up is Fiction Editor, Robin Carson, who’s been with On Spec since 2008. Here are the questions I put to him and his replies: 

1). What kinds of stories appeal to you most? Do you lean towards a particular type of story or style?

I lean toward logical, science-based or historical stories that demonstrate internalized (i.e., not showy) careful research. Since I read science-fiction almost exclusively as I grew up, and am a lover of good non-romantic historical fiction as an adult, these tastes come as no surprise to those who know me.

2). What types of stories don't appeal to you? What are your pet peeves, writing-wise? 

I really, really hate romantic schlock! When moonbeams replace logic, I pass on reading.

My pet peeves on writing constitute an entirely different question. As a consumer, I dislike badly edited stories, and have written to total strangers to tell them so. When I work with a writer, I expect to be accepted as part of that writer's team; some writers eschew editors so that they can hang on to every comma--and it is the resulting stories that I dislike because there are just too many hurdles the reader has to hop.

3). What advice would you give to a writer submitting to us? 

My advice to anyone submitting to On Spec is first of all, to actually have a complete story, not just a good idea dressed up as a story. If your story is selected, trust your copy editor. That editor is on your side, and brings to bear the eyes of a trained reader. Trust me, no editor will work to make your story worse.

4). Please list any credits you'd like mentioned (ie. book publications, editing/publishing involvement), followed by a small bio: 

My credits and experience include publications on theatrical makeup, LSL (Latin as a Second Language), a really solid math/science background, and experience as chief editor for an all-colour, forty-page magazine published quarterly to an audience of 15,000 that includes far too many English teachers. No novels. No short-stories. Style manuals as free-reading.

Robin's Bio: Robin Carson is male and a geezer. While his chief love is his wife, language in general (and English in particular) runs a close second. Oh. And did he mention Shakespeare?

(Thanks, Robin.)

Next Post: Barb Galler-Smith. 

Stay tuned.

WHY DIDN'T ON SPEC BUY MY STORY?

I JUST FINISHED WRITING THE LAST OF MY REJECTION LETTERS for On Spec. The depressing thing about this is that many of the letters I wrote were for writers who sent us good stories, yet for one reason or another, we didn’t accept their work. If you’re an experienced writer who knows better than to make beginner’s mistakes, this post is for you.

Why did we reject your story? It may have been for one of the following reasons:

1. Dramatic Tension: The story didn’t have enough tension. We often find this in ‘day-in-the-life’ pieces. Other publications might buy these, but they usually aren't for us.
2. Stakes: They weren’t big enough. Whatever your protagonist is involved in, it needs to cost him something – it should hurt him if he fails. Whatever he wants shouldn’t come easily. (Just like writing).
3. Endings: We don’t generally buy stories that drift off without a solid conclusion. It doesn’t matter if the rest of the piece is good. There were a number of stories that made it to the second round of reading, but because a character didn’t, a). make a choice and let us in on it, or b). show us some growth, the ending felt anticlimactic. It’s hard to be objective about our work. But sometimes, when you think your ending is solid, it isn’t.
4. Endings That Aren’t: Many of us are working on novels. We think, “Hey, I can turn my Chapter One into a short story, no problem.” Unfortunately, most Chapter Ones don’t work well on their own. There is no sense of containment or completeness to the piece, but rather, a sense that the story is just beginning (because it is).
5. The Reader is Kept at Arm’s Length: What usually happens here, is that the story has a good opening, a clear plot, and then for some reason, the action turns vague, the visuals unclear. We aren’t sure what’s going on with the characters, internally or externally. This can be a case of being too subtle, of expecting the reader to ‘get it’, when in fact, they don’t. If this is your tendency, it’s probably better to err on the side of being obvious.
6. It’s Been Done: Vampire, zombie, and werewolf stories are becoming a hard sell to us. Even if your piece is well-written, there must be a major element within it that shows us a new bent. And even then, we may not think it’s enough.
7. It’s a DND/RPG Type-Story: We like action, heroes, and monsters, but again, even if your piece is brilliantly written, anything that involves battling stronger and stronger adversaries until your protagonist comes up against a ‘boss’ is likely to be passed over. These just aren’t to our taste.
 8. Characters Who are Victims or Losers in the End: Generally, not our thing, unless your character makes some kind of a sacrifice that costs him a great deal.
9. Point of View: Omniscient can be difficult to pull off well. Unless you’re a word wizard, it’s probably better to write in Third-Person Limited. First Person is fine, too, although some of us have a problem with it. I don’t mind it. I’ve also seen Second Person done well, but often, it comes off as manipulative.
10. Tense: A couple of us don’t like Present Tense and it puts us off. I’m fine with it. Just sayin’.
11. Mood Pieces: We like mood. We like plot better. Give us both. A mood piece usually has an agenda – to make a point about the environment, the evils or war, or what-have-you. If your raison d’etre is to make a point, you may come off as preachy.
12. Not SF Enough: Occasionally, writers will send us wonderful work that they hope is speculative enough. It usually isn’t. The piece is often a metaphor for an aspect of the real world.
13. And finally, Individual Editor Taste: On Spec is an editorial collective. We are five editors with differing tastes and ideas about what makes great work great. This is both our strength and our weakness. There were a few stories this time around that I really liked, but I couldn’t convince my fellow editors, and vice versa. It happens.

Rejection is never easy, but maybe with some insight into how we think, you'll be successful in placing a story with us next time.Until then, all the best in writing and in life.

AUDACITY

Last week was an interesting one. I learned how to make a podcast using Audacity. Who knew someone as technically illiterate as yours truly could do such a thing? But I did. Which goes to show what a little effort and watching tutorials can do.

You've likely seen my alter-ego blog, Quips from Calasandra, which I set up as a promotional tool for the up-and-coming "A Method to the Madness" anthology coming out this July. Michell Plested and Jeff Hite, co-editors, set out a list of questions to which we all had to respond, and I, not to be outdone by the other super-villains, had to learn how to create a podcast.

If you've never made a podcast before, Audacity is a great tool. It's free, open-source, and there are videos on Youtube to help you get started. Once I downloaded it (and yes, my first time downloading anything - I'm spoiled here at Casa MacGregor), it was pretty easy to figure things out. All I can say is, thank God for the re-do and delete keys. What you'll hear is a mixed version of twelve different tracks. I created my own sound-effects and edited them, trimmed out the awkward bits caused by machine clicks and breathing, amplified parts that needed amplifying, and added my own fade in and fade outs with the music (apologies to Edith Piaf). It was helpful to keep copies of the 'projects' as I layered them, so I saved those as I went along in case of mistakes. Then I turned the whole thing into a wave file, the final step in the process.

It took me about four days to learn Audacity and create the podcast. I warn you, it's a bit silly, but it's also in keeping with the lightness and humor of the anthology. I hope you like it. You can follow the link to The Mad Scientist site. Give it a moment to load. Enjoy!

BACK FROM THE DEAD...

Yes, it's been two years or so, since my last post. What can I say? I've been busy. Lots happening, lots going on. Lately, I have two stories coming out in two separate anthologies - the first debuts this July, 2013: "A Method to the Madness, A Guide to the Super Evil" through Five Rivers Publishing. As part of the promotional process, I've set up a separate blog for my story, as have all the other contributors. The anthology is meant to be humorous, with stories along the same lines as the movie "Despicable Me". I hope everyone who reads the book (and my story) finds it enjoyable. My second story will appear in the "Urban Green Man" anthology through Edge Books, launching this August at When Words Collide, an annual writers' convention in Calgary. I was really pleased to learn that my story "Evergreen" has been chosen for the lead, following an introduction by Charles de Lint.