Showing posts with label I Read On Spec Facebook Page. Show all posts
Showing posts with label I Read On Spec Facebook Page. Show all posts

Thursday, January 08, 2015

THE DUNNING-KRUGER BUMP (or HOW to SUCK LESS in the LONG RUN) - GUEST POST by BARBARA GEIGER

MY LAST Letter to the Slush Pile #21 GENERATED QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION on the I Read On Spec Facebook page. Because of it, I invited anyone who had participated to share their thoughts here on Suzenyms. I'm very pleased that Barbara Geiger took me up on my offer. Barbara is one of the brightest and most thoughtful writers I know. Twenty years ago, I had the sense that my writing wasn't at the level I wanted it to be; thirty years ago, I didn't even have the sense of how far I needed to go. There is an actual term for this - the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I'm sure you'll find what Barbara has to say, and the links she's included, very enlightening. (Thanks, Barbara, for sharing this with us):

THE DUNNING-KRUGER BUMP (or HOW to SUCK LESS in the LONG RUN) 
by Barbara Geiger:

If you are a writer and are not getting the response you want from your texts, please watch this amazing video taken from Ira Glass talking about the gap between your taste for good fiction and your ability to produce it. It’s amazing how well he articulates the frustration between knowing what good is, and not being able to create it yet.
But the gap is less obvious to some. Writers are not immune to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You can read the article, but in simple words it means people who are bad at things do not understand just how bad they are at the thing they are bad at. And I’m not wagging my fingers from the comfort of the other side of Ira Glass’s Gap. I’m still climbing the gap myself.
When I think back to my early twenties, I remember how absolutely certain I was about the craft of writing.  I did improve in those five years, and I did see some publishing successes, but there were far more rejections than acceptances. I played to my strengths in plotting, but I never went back to do any serious rewriting and my sentence structure often resulted in word salad.
It took sitting around a critique circle with twelve other writers on a really hot August day for almost seven hours to realize we all could figure out exactly wasn’t working in other people’s writing, but we weren’t showing what we all knew in our own. We could have handed our critiques to the person on our left, and any feedback would have been accurate.
I was a rule-breaker except “there are no rules” which I embraced whole-heartedly. I got off the Dunning-Kruger bump by really studying why a story failed, something that is almost impossible to do by reading published work that has most of the mistakes edited out. Around that time, a small group of SFWA  members wrote a sting manuscript to catch a vanity publishing house trying to pass off as legit by writing the worst book in the world. Watching good writers writing badly on purpose is worth the price of admission, but Teresa Nielsen Hayden didn’t torture similes, extend them into next week, or drape her chapter fifteen in purple. In her chapter, to paraphrase, the main character had supper, talked with his girlfriend for a while, watched a movie, and went home to bed. For Hayden, the worst possible writing wasn’t so-bad-it’s-good. Terrible writing was, and is, boring writing, in which nothing significant happens.
For those of us caught on the bump, getting down off it can take as little as realizing that no one is trying to fool you into believing that writing is any more complicated than it has to be. Show don’t tell works on all levels from the sentence structure to your statement on humanity. Cutting or editing anything that doesn’t belong keeps the writing tight, and keeping the conflict in the foreground as much as possible keeps the readers attention. The world doesn’t have to blow up; ending a marriage can be cosmically devastating to the right character.
Show don’t tell works on the page when you’re describing something, but it also works in the plot where you show the reader what’s important to the world, instead of stopping the action during an emotional scene to tell the reader what’s going on. It even works on the thematic level when you’re showing the reader what you have to say about the human condition.
Writers could spend years, if not decades, on the bump, doing the exact same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A friend of mine said she didn’t start selling short stories until she actually started reading short stories, even though she’d been told since the very beginning to read the magazine she wanted to sell to. I didn’t start selling until I realized rewriting is more important than the first draft. Deleting words used to feel like cutting off a limb. But if they are extraneous to the plot, it’s not even an outpatient procedure. It’s snipping off the threads on an itchy tag.
Writing needs both talent and skill, of which you’re born with a finite amount of one, and an infinite source of the other. If you are not where you want to be, but are actively working at improving yourself any way you possibly can, there’s absolutely nothing standing in your way. If you think marketing is the only difference between a best-seller and a trunk novel, then you are the thing standing in your way. Some people spend their whole life on the Dunning-Kruger bump. The view is great, but it gets them nowhere.

Barbara's Bio: Barbara didn’t learn that she had lived in three out of the four Northern Alberta towns that had a known or suspected Wendigo attack until well after she’d moved south to Lethbridge. She grew up loving ghost stories and pony books, and spent most of her summers on the British Columbia coast, where she fell in love with the ocean.
As Angela Fiddler, she has written The Master of the Lines series as well as Cy and his sex demon problem books. As Barbara Geiger, she has written The Tempest trilogy, starting with Coral Were His Bones, which exists in the same universe of the Middle Hill series, starting with Changeling, as well as various other novellas and short stories.
When she’s not blogging about the exploits of selkies, sex demons, and vampires, she writes about making bread at barbarageiger.me/blog.
You can contact Barbara (or Angela) by email at barbara_geiger@icloud.com.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

WANT TO SUPPORT ON SPEC and SPECULATIVE WRITERS HERE IN CANADA AND ELSEWHERE?

THOSE OF YOU WHO READ THE I READ ON SPEC FACEBOOK PAGE, have already seen the following post by Diane Walton, Managing Editor of our magazine. It looks as if the Canada Council has once again cut our funding, so she is appealing to folks to support On Spec through additional subscriptions and/or donations. Diane writes:

THERE'S A NUMBER OF ON SPEC FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS IN THIS GROUP, and I am really hoping they all have like-minded friends. This will be the first of probably many posts on the same topic. Most of you know that On Spec is a small, non-profit journal. It depends heavily on support from granting bodies like Canada Council for the Arts and the Alberta Multi-Media Fund. That's a reality in Canada. Magazines, especially the arts and cultural journals, need help to reach their audience.

There was a time when we could depend on the annual grants increasing as our related costs of production and distribution increased, so we could remain afloat and plan for each year. Ending the year with a small surplus was always a blessing. Recently, the opposite is true. Grants have decreased as much as $5,000 from one year to the next, and there is always the threat of being cut off from funding completely, as we were when they unexpectedly changed the eligibility rules for the Canadian Magazine Fund grant. And believe me, it hurt. We've made spending cuts in as many places as we could, without sacrificing the quality of the magazine. The time has come when we've tightened our belts as much as we can.

We are basically treading water right now, trying to promote On Spec with next to no budget, often with the editors paying their own way to conventions outside Edmonton. Making sure we can pay our bills is an ongoing challenge. We need to ask for your support. A gift of cash is certainly appreciated, but what helps us more is sustainable income, such as that obtained from a strong subscriber base, or revenue from repeat advertising. So now, more than ever, we ask you to tell as many people you know about our little magazine. Encourage them to subscribe. Buy gift subscriptions for your friends and family. Spread the word about our e-reader versions. We need your help to get through the lean times. And we need more readers!

Our new website will be up and running soon, and there will be a page for making donations, and buying subscriptions. Please visit there, and encourage anyone with a taste for engaging, intelligent literature to drop by for a visit. We'd love to meet them.

- Diane Walton.

Susan, again: And just so all of you know, we editors used to be paid an honorarium for our work with the magazine. Nearly two years ago, when we were faced with dwindling resources, we all chose to stay on with the magazine without expecting any recompense for the work we do. For us On Spec has been, and continues to be, a labour of love - something we do for free. As readers and subscribers, any support you give the magazine goes solely to the writers and artists who help make On Spec the exceptional magazine it is.

Brent Jans, one of our new editors and also webmaster, is currently working behind the scenes to re-vamp On Spec's web page. Included on it will be a link for a free trial e-issue. I'll post about the e-issue once it's available. In the meantime, if you'd like to subscribe to On Spec, please go to the On Spec website here.

On behalf of all of us at On Spec, thank you for your support.

- Susan.

Friday, April 18, 2014

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, SUZENYMS!

THIS WILL BE A SHORT POST. About a year ago, I decided to resurrect Suzenyms. I'm so glad I did. At first, I thought the new start-up would be a way of promoting my book The Tattooed Witch, but I've actually had more fun posting about writing and editing, and sharing my insights with you via my ABC's and Letters to the Slush Pile. It's also been my pleasure to host many of you, including On Spec editors Diane Walton, Barb Galler-Smith, Ann Marston, Robin Carson, Barry Hammond, Cat McDonald, and contributing guest professionals, Lorina Stephens, Robert Runte, Dave Laderoute, Michael R. Fletcher, Michell Plested, Sally McBride, Eileen Bell, Billie Milholland, Hugh A.D. Spencer, Derek Newman-Stille, Graeme Brown, Karen Dudley, Adria Laycraft, Janice Blaine, Peter Halasz, and Rachel Sentes.

To all of you who have shared your thoughts with me here on Suzenyms or on the I Read On Spec Facebook Page, a big thank you! You've given me a wonderful year. 

- Susan.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

THE 'F' WORD

THOSE OF YOU WHO REGULARLY CHECK IN to our I Read On Spec Facebook page might have noted the recent question posed to us as to whether we accept work with ‘swears’ in it. The writer wanted to know if he’d have a better chance of being published if he removed them from his story. I put the question to my fellow-editors. Here’s what they had to say: 

Ann Marston: My feelings on the F-word, and just about all obscenities, vulgarities, and other assorted ‘swears’, is that I have no objection to a few sprinkled here and there for effect, or to delineate a character's speech patterns. However, bad language is much like dialect. You need only a little here and there to instill into the reader's head that this character uses a lot of foul language. A suggestion is usually more effective than the proverbial load of bricks. It's been my experience that if the writer uses the F-word too often, it quickly loses its shock value and begins to sound trite, silly, and downright annoying. As both a reader and an editor, I really don't feel obligated to read anything trite, silly, and/or annoying.
  
Robin Carson: In real-estate, it is said that the three main rules are 'location, location, location.' For a writer, the rules are similar: 'motivation, motivation, motivation.' Remembering that words can either be motivating or motivated, those words can be whatever a given character would either say, or react to. In other words, there must be appropriateness in the use of the words—any words, taboo or not. Words for the sake of words have no place in tight, effective writing.

In addition, as my dear old Dad used to say, "Leave them wanting more." Some writers seem to think that if you shock someone once with words or violence, doing it twice makes it twice as good. There is no subtlety in that; no elegance in the crafting. Besides, with repetition, lack of variety soon makes readers yawn. Repetition is just one small effect in what should be a full complement of effects.

Bottom line? If taboo words motivate a situation, or are motivated by the nature of a character, then you don't need permission to use them: at On Spec, we seldom ask, “But what about the children?” If, though, these words are intended as some kind of replacement for good writing, expect rejection.

Barb Galler-Smith: Verisimilitude in writing is deeply important, but just because a character REALLY would place a ‘fuck’ in between every word they utter, and a few ‘mother’s’ to go along with it, is bad in writing. I hear writers claim that’s the way the character would really talk. Possibly, but in the written word it’s nonsense. Excessive expletives, vulgarities, or profanities are no more useful in writing speech than a hundred ‘uhms’.  One or two to make it clear a character swears is fine, but too many are intrusive.  After that, it gets in the way of the real story. 

Diane Walton: Choice of language spoken by a character all depends on that character, and all the influences (education, socio-economic status, peer group) that brought them to where they are at the moment the story takes place. If a character is the kind of person who resorts to strong language in a stressful situation, or even if the character is a street-wise braggart who says ‘fuck’ every fourth word to impress his peers, I’m okay with that as long as the characterization is honest, and it isn’t simply being done for cheap shock value.

Even then, there’s a difference between the speaker using language to shock or impress his audience within the story, and the author using language to shock the reader because they are too lazy to come up with more interesting words. (I am reminded of Cyrano de Bergerac lecturing the louts on all the creative ways they could be insulting his nose.) You don’t want to have the choice of language dominate the narrative or alienate the reader from the story. A good writer could simply drop a bomb or two and then imply that the character’s speech is peppered with similar words, and we’ll get the message.

Bottom line is know your audience. On Spec is not a YA magazine. We expect adult content, but that speaks more to the sophistication of the telling than it does to the number of four letter words or sex scenes the author can squeeze in.

One thing that turns me off would be a first person narrator who fills the page with profanities. Even Holden Caulfield knew the value of a carefully placed ‘goddam’.

(So, there you have it. There isn’t much I can add. I think Ann, Robin, Barb, and Diane have said it very well. Thanks, guys.)

Next Post: Publicists, Part Two: Can You Work With Two Publicists at a Time? by Rachel Sentes.