I will be in Williamsburg, Virginia, for RavenCon April 29 through May 1st. Here is my tentative schedule:
Friday:
5 pm (Panel) Guilty Pleasure: The “B” Movie / Room G
7 pm (Opening Ceremony) Large Auditorium
Saturday:
6 pm - 8 pm (Panel) Ask SWFA / Room G
Sunday:
10 am (Signing) Dealers Room - John Teehan of The Merry Blacksmith Press will be in the Dealers Room, so copies of "Letters from Gardner" and "Texas & Other Planets" will be available for purchase.
Noon (Panel) Learning to Write: Workshops, Books & Classes / Room 8
2 pm (Reading) Room J - I will be reading my short story which is included in the Decision Points YA anthology being releasednext month, "The Milky Way Dance Hall".
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Some feedback on a rejection
"It is really well-written, but far too predictable. I knew exactly what was going to happen on almost every page that the story held no "interest for me other than the good writing. But I can't buy a story on that basis alone.
"Also, this is one of those overused plotlines in the same vein as "let's go back in time and kill Hitler." I kept waiting for the narrative to take an intriguing new direction, but it never happened."
I've joked in the past that, with my background in journalism, I have a decent grasp of the English language, and I've never been told a story was poorly written - just that it had other minor problems such as plot, pacing, characterization and so forth. This is a good example.
I've said in the past any feedback from an editor is good, and this is valid criticism. It's nice to see normal feedback with a rejection, and not all the bad faith hatchet jobs myself and a lot of Hugo nominees had to endure last year. This example of feedback starts off by highlighting the positive aspects of the story, but then segues into the problems - which is always a valid approach. Last year most of the reviews of Hugo-nominated stories skipped the positives, went straight to the negatives, and usually segued into personal attacks. Not all, but most. Which is why, unfortunately, I'm grateful when an editor sends honest feedback with a rejection.
Not that all my feedback are rejections. I should have between one and three acceptances to announces soon.
"Also, this is one of those overused plotlines in the same vein as "let's go back in time and kill Hitler." I kept waiting for the narrative to take an intriguing new direction, but it never happened."
I've joked in the past that, with my background in journalism, I have a decent grasp of the English language, and I've never been told a story was poorly written - just that it had other minor problems such as plot, pacing, characterization and so forth. This is a good example.
I've said in the past any feedback from an editor is good, and this is valid criticism. It's nice to see normal feedback with a rejection, and not all the bad faith hatchet jobs myself and a lot of Hugo nominees had to endure last year. This example of feedback starts off by highlighting the positive aspects of the story, but then segues into the problems - which is always a valid approach. Last year most of the reviews of Hugo-nominated stories skipped the positives, went straight to the negatives, and usually segued into personal attacks. Not all, but most. Which is why, unfortunately, I'm grateful when an editor sends honest feedback with a rejection.
Not that all my feedback are rejections. I should have between one and three acceptances to announces soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
It's that time of the year again, for the annual eligibility post - a blog or social media post listing of what you published in 2017 th...
-
The deadline for The Hugo Awards nominations is March 10. My story, "On a Spiritual Plain", which was published in issue No. 2 of ... -
By LOU ANTONELLI Managing Editor It’s rained almost daily for the past four months. The ground is saturated; walking across grass is lik...