I was doing a final check before I sent a story out to Shroud Magazine, and then I took a closer look at the stories they didn't want:
quote:Hard Science Fiction; Sword and Sorcery or anything set in a fantasy world; Stories about serial killers; Vampires ala Rice; First person accounts.
It's the last part about "first person accounts" that worries me. Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here, but does this mean my story, written in first person, is not likely one they'll be interested in? Or do they mean some specific story type by 'first person accounts'?
posted
I generally prefer to write my stories my way, get them finished, and then-and-only-then see which markets might prefer that kind of story. I haven't done much exploring of late, but in the days when I did, I found most magazines routinely violated their expressed preferences and published stories that fit their "rejection template." Not just SF mags but elsewhere.
I'm not saying that's the way for everyone to go---my track record of no profesional publication in thirty-three years speaks volumes---but I think it best to "be yourself" and put the result up to them...at least, when it's not explicitly what they say they don't want...
posted
Yeah, it looks like you'd have a hard sell with your 1st person POV. You can still send it, but be prepared for a quick rejection. Depending on the whims of whoever's reading that day, they'll take a look at the first "I" and round file it. You may get lucky, and the reader will actually give it a shot, but...take a look on Duotrope and see if there's a better fit for it somewhere.
Posts: 840 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. I was hoping that 'first person accounts' was some horror genre I hadn't heard of yet... Hooray for wishful thinking!
And I always write my stories with no thought to the publication markets; this story has been complete for a long time. I was just excited by this particular market because it's a perfect fit to this story in every way except for the first person issue. After I read my sample issue from them, I'll see how good of a fit my story really is, and then consider trying again. The category was actually that they were 'less interested', so there may be a chance.
This isn't the first time I've encountered a magazine that doesn't want first person. Why might that be? Just a stylistic choice?
[This message has been edited by BoredCrow (edited February 04, 2009).]
posted
My discomfort with first-person narratives comes from the easily overburdensome autobiographical I, me, my, mine. I find it alienating when the I is directing all the action. I saw, I looked, I heard, I felt, I tasted, I smelled, I sat, I waited, my shirt, me and her saw, and so on. The point of view is too close in psychic access most of the time in poorly executed ones. Good first-person stories take advantage of auxilliary third person for external narrative modes. Introspection and some emotion and some sensation in first person, of course. Emotion, sensation, exposition, explanation, summarization, and description need not be entirely in first person for a first-person narrator.
One of my favorite first-person accounts, a nonfiction memoir, is This Boy's Life, 1989, by Tobias Wolfe. He deflty moves through the narrative switching seamlessly between narrative modes and narratorial persons.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited February 04, 2009).]
posted
Another consideration for whether a first-person narrator is effective, is first person essential to the story? Could the narrative be recast in third-person close? To my thinking, a first-person narrator ideally is one who has an internal predicament related to the external predicament. And both are addressed in the narrative. A reversal of fortune occurs for both synchronously at the climax with consequent accommodation to the outcomes as the resolution.
Whether the narrator is the character central to the action, the protagonist, or merely the narrator is another consideration. Creative nonfiction almost requires a narrator related to the theme. As such, some mention of the narrator's relationship to the narrative is essential. However, in fiction a narrator not in the frame of the story is of late more popular. That allows readers to more readily become self-involved in the narrative.
Maybe I'm being hopeful on your behalf, but perhaps it refers to retellings of real-world incidents, i.e. "I was at the horrible robot monkey ninja incident of '09 and this is what happened'?
It seems odd that they'd be against 1st person POV; it's a pretty common mode of story-telling. It is, in my opinion, a POV that is easy to stuff up, but it's immensely satisfying when it works. I don't know whether it would be acceptable etiquette contacting the editor and asking for a clarification?
posted
Although it's often said that first person is hard for new writers to pull off successfully, to be uninterested in first person POV sounds rather sweeping.
Perhaps the operative word is "account"; maybe it means one of those rambling diary or journal things, wherein the writer recounts experiences but without a story arc?
posted
Quite a lot of magazines, print and online, are reluctant with 1st person POV from new writers for precisely the reasons given above. A lot of writers think it's easier to write 1st person POV, and it is easier as a way to write your way into the story, but it has its own pitfalls as described above.
Posts: 840 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see so many 1st person stories from established writers that I always find it hard to believe that it's that discouraged. Then again, many big-name writers also often get away with writing complete crap and getting it published.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...many big-name writers also often get away with writing complete crap and getting it published."
Exactly. When we either change our name to Stephen King or John Grisham then we can have our crap published anywhere.
I, personally, like 1st person. I only use it for a certain type of story: psychological. First person does not work in a lot of instances, and, quite frankly, it's almost a lazy way of writing.
If one reads a 1st person POV, one immediately has to question why the author chose that particular way to write it.
For example, Ramsey Campbell's, The Grin of the Dark was 1st person POV, and I don't think it would've worked any other way. Campbell hasn't used 1st person before for a novel so the choice was deliberate in this instance.
Patrick McGrath uses 1st person in all his novels (I think), but his latest novels--I'm thinking Martha Peake because I haven't read his latest--one can see the 1st person as like a crutch. I think Peake would've been better served with limited 3rd. But, hey, I'm not the writer so it wasn't my decision.
Bottomline: Use the POV that is necessary for YOU to tell the story.
quote:Maybe I'm being hopeful on your behalf, but perhaps it refers to retellings of real-world incidents, i.e. "I was at the horrible robot monkey ninja incident of '09 and this is what happened'?
posted
I agree with those who would consider "first person accounts" in that context non-fictional, this-really-happened-to-me, type stories.
You could include a cover letter that says "please consider the enclosed short fiction story", if you're concerned they'll mistake a fictional first person POV with an eyewitness account.
posted
On the general first person question, I don't view first person POV as categorically inferior to third person POV. For stories that require multiple POVs or that derive a lot of suspense from having POV characters lives in jeopardy, third might be a better choice in general, but I wouldn't categorize first as substandard or lazy. It's actually difficult to pull off well without tatooing the reader with I me mine.
I'm in the middle of translating a story from third to first person, and have another I did originally n first I was going to translate to third. I've found there's a lot more to it than swapping pronouns! My goal in the exercise is to gain some insight into creating better close 3rd POV skills.
posted
There are two major stumbling blocks that I think writers have to figure out how to overcome if they're going to tell a story in first person point of view.
1--in first person, you can't talk about your good qualities without sounding boastful. I think this is one thing that really tripped Stephenie Meyer up in her Twilight series. Her point of view character, Bella, comes off to a lot of people as "whiny" when Meyer intended to show her as self-sacrificing. (I didn't realize she was self-sacrificing until I read the fourth book--after reading THE HOST, in which she has another self-sacrificing character who came across as that more clearly.) By the way, I can say what Meyer intended because I've read the excerpt of MIDNIGHT SUN (the first book retold from Edward's point of view), and there is a lot of emphasis on Bella's unselfishness and self-sacrificing--it's part of why Edward fell in love with her.
2--it can be a suspense-killer because you know the first person character survived (in one form or another) to tell the tale.
posted
"...but I wouldn't categorize first as substandard or lazy. It's actually difficult to pull off well without tatooing the reader with I me mine."
That's my point. Good 1st is actually very difficult to do. It seems easier 'cause it's like writing in a journal and the writer can somehow get closer to the story...the perception is that anyone who has a blog can do a good 1st person novel 'cause he or she has a blog.
As far as the original question about Shroud, I took a gander at their guidelines. They've got a section on their non-fiction so it's possible they're talking about memoir-type stuff; though the "1st person accounts" info was from their fiction guidelines section.
As I said, it looks to me like they don't dig 1st person POV, but it doesn't hurt to send it if there's any doubt. The worst that could happen is they say no. And you know what the best that could happen is so...
Right, rich, the first person account thing did apply specifically to fiction. I think what I'm going to do is wait until my sample copy arrives, and see if there's any first person narratives at all, and if my story truly is a perfect fit in everything but that one area.
I actually recently did the opposite: turn a third-person narrative into first person. For that story, changing it to first person added a level of depth that I had been unable to acheive in third person.
I don't know if I do one way better than the other. If I look at my stories, I think two-thirds to three-fourths are in third person. I can't even say why I pick one over the other, for it would be naive to say that you can't achieve depth in third person as easily as in first. You can, for certain.
And I'm also suspicious of the idea that one format is better than the other. I've seen both done poorly, and both done well. But that, as is everything, is just my opinion.
posted
Well, the thing I'm working on right now (at least when I'm working on something) started off as third person singluar, but I just couldn't tell the story and define the lead character that way, so I reverted to first person singular.
(The problem was that she was an imposter---everybody thought she was the person she was pretending to be, but she knew she wasn't, except in her head she kept slipping up. She kept slipping up in her head, and thinking of things as if they were hers---then rapidly cutting back. "My things---her things..." I think I worked it out okay...it played better, anyway...now if I could only finish the damned rewrite and edit...)
posted
I've written a couple stories in first, and I think the reason I did so is that these particular stories were very based on hallucinations/dreams, and it just seemed weird to me to have that described in 3rd. I'm sure it's possible, but it just didn't seem to come out right.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
