posted
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I don't think anyone need to leave, here. We ALL value the first 13, even Rich, he said so. We just value them for different reasons.
We can all stay if we just recognize that there are different ways that people want their stuff judged. We all want the faith, hope, and clarity stuff, but then the differences come out. I have my bad-idea-jeans on today, so I'm going to propose that we form two factions...
Faction One: The "will you read on?" people
Faction Two: The "where's the hook?" people
The issue gets hot when we don't know what the writer is asking when they post their 13. Faction One (people like Merlion, Rich, and myself, I think) feel over-critiqued to the point where nothing said is of use. If most of the readers say they would read on, then that's hooky enough for us. We don't want to know if you think an editor will read on, we want to know if YOU would read on.
Faction two (I'm assuming tchernabyelo, Jeff M, and TaleSpinner fit here) want comments on style, word use, tension, etc. They want specific comments on their "first impression" to an editor.
Okay, there's my bad idea. Sorry if I put anyone in the wrong faction. Anyone up for a gang war?
posted
True, if someone does or does not want specific types of feedback, they could say so when posting the 13 lines. For example, if someone said "pease don't pick it apart" then I might pass on that one
That doesn't address the philosophical question of what constitutes a hook; we can try to forget what a hook is "supposed" to be, and ask ourselves if we like it (and would read on). But my personal opinion has definitely been influenced by the common wisdom I have picked up here, which may or may not be the wisest approach. The discussion of slush defiers has certainly been eye-opening. I've added depth and voice to the things to look for in an opening.
Since we are limited to 13 lines, some folks may want to post a quick synopsis to give some context to a slower opening. That may free us up to crit more on the quality of writing in the 13 lines, focusing less on the lack of tension and speculative interest.
Edited to correct "slush defilers"
[This message has been edited by MrsBrown (edited June 26, 2009).]
posted
That could be a good idea for some people, Mrs. Brown. After all, the hook may not lie in the first thirteen lines of a longer work or a piece of experimental fiction. But the first thirteen should still be a pleasure to read.
Posts: 976 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, if one wishes to work on quality of writing and forget the "hook", pick ANY 13 lines in the story, and provide a quick synopsis of what came before for context.
I like the statement that any 13 lines should pull the reader forward, not just the first 13.
On a side note, we could just post a synopsis to get feedback on the whole story idea. I like reading threads on others' synopsis [pl] in the novels forum. People post them as queries after the book is written, with the crits being about the writing quality of the synopsis, not the idea. Hmmm, personally I think I'd rather hash out my ideas offline...
posted
I'm trying to figure out how to put "bad-idea-jeans" and "slush defilers" into my everyday conversation. Those two phrases alone are worth this thread.
Posts: 840 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doc Brown, thanks for adding to this discussion. My argument regarding depth actually began with a much earlier thread where zerostone first began posting published first-13's. My comments have largely been in relation to what has been posted then and afterwards. I also agree with your assessment of what the stories have in common.
quote:Common threads I notice:
Every one of them has good cadence.
Every one of them uses strong nouns and verbs. No adverbs and sparse adjectives.
They are all first person, and the POV character is active in the scene.
In three of the four another character in the scene is larger than life
The first two that you mention are things that I see most Hatrackers doing very well. The third is something that many of us have tried to stay away from. I do not know what this means being that these are all first-timers, but obviously first person does not mean an immediate passover. I questioned whether zerostone could have chosen all first-person POV's on purpose.
I am most interested in what you meant by the last commonality that you mentioned - the larger than life character. In what way do you perceive these characters as being larger than life?
Though I agree with your premises, I feel that there is another quality in addition to good grammer skills and POV. I feel that there is a quality of layering here that I have called depth. My examples were some of the ways I saw this being done. I also see this often in literary writing.
In my stating that these stories appear more "literary", I stand by my comment. I have read these magazines often enough to feel confident in my assertion that they have a literary quality to them. Although I have not enjoyed some of the stories, this is not intended to be a negative comment about the magazines. I read quite a few literary novels each year and enjoy them immensely - because I tend to be choosy with what and who I read. I like certain writers' styles and other times I have heard good word of mouth. When I buy a magazine, it all gets thrown in together (what I like and what I don't). Nevertheless, to me, they "quack like a duck".
Edited to add a question mark - I've been forgetting those a lot lately.
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited June 26, 2009).]
quote:True, if someone does or does not want specific types of feedback, they could say so when posting the 13 lines. For example, if someone said "pease don't pick it apart" then I might pass on that one
According to the instructions on the front page of the Writers Workshop area, you are SUPPOSED to post both what kind of feedback you want, and your overall intentions with the piece. And critiques are supposed to be within that context, and to work towards the purpose of helping the writer convey whats in his head to readers in the best way possible (not, specifically, to make it match better with anyones idea of what an editor does or doesn't want.)
quote:A good story with competent writing is worthless, only your mother or spouse would read it. But a good story with outstanding writing will be read.
The trouble is everyone including editors has a different idea of what "outstanding" writing is.
quote:The issue gets hot when we don't know what the writer is asking when they post their 13. Faction One (people like Merlion, Rich, and myself, I think) feel over-critiqued to the point where nothing said is of use. If most of the readers say they would read on, then that's hooky enough for us. We don't want to know if you think an editor will read on, we want to know if YOU would read on.
What I want is for all criticism to be within the context of a piece, not advice on how to turn it into something else. This is something I've wanted to start a topic about but there hasn't been a good opportunity...that and for people to remember that the begining is the begining. In medias res is fine, but some stories start at the begining
I just really feel that the stuff zerostone has been posting strongly indicates what I've always said: theres more than one type of story that gets published.
posted
I guess I need to chime in here, at least a little bit.
I recognize the difficulties some people have with the 13-line restriction (in any and/or all of its aspects), but my hope is that it can be useful in spite of that.
I appreciate the efforts of those who have (not just here, but in other topics on this forum) expended energy, thought, and words in explaining and supporting the 13-line restriction here.
I, too, become a little weary every time complaints crop up, especially when they take over a topic, though I can't bring myself to respond online the way I might like to in person.
Thank you to all of you who understand what we are trying to do here, and why we are trying to do it with the 13-line restriction. It does my heart good to have your support.
For those of you who are frustrated by what you perceive as a fixation on the first 13 lines, please remember that you do not have to pay any attention to any feedback that is not helpful or useful to you.
Please also remember that arguing about it over and over again is also not very helpful. I'm going to be a stick in the mud here, and I'm not going to change things, no matter how much you argue and complain. You are welcome to state your concerns once or twice, but more than that is decidedly unwelcome.
Please consider expending some (if not all) of that we-don't-like-the-way-things-are-done-here energy on your fiction writing?
quote:Please also remember that arguing about it over and over again is also not very helpful. I'm going to be a stick in the mud here, and I'm not going to change things, no matter how much you argue and complain
I want to make it extremely unequivocally clear that I have never in any way requested or suggested any kind of change in how the site works.
In fact, truthfully my only real problem with the first 13 fixation specifically is being told that you MUST create a "perfect" one in order to get published and/or that all publications worth thinking about make the "reject or read on" decision based on the first 13. And that doesn't really come up that often.
My bigger issues lie in other areas (mostly the context issue) that just some times happen to intermix with the 13 line issue.
But how the site works and is run isn't a biggy for me. I use multiple workshop sites anyway.
posted
We all try and create a perfect first 13, don't we? To do otherwise is idiocy.
Personally, I try and create (and fail) a perfect story, from start to finish. The problem seems to be the question as to what that perfection is meant to look like.
When I crit a piece, I do so with the intention of pointing out any and all (unless there are loads) problems with the piece as I see it. I am not going to be nice and pretend I liked something if I didn't--that's plain stupid. But it is all my opinion...and so is not worth much.
If people want to judge whether my opinion is worth listening to they can read my intros (I've posted a few) or follow the link in my bio, which should take them to a site or two with my published works. They can judge for themselves.
I crit for the author and for myself. I seldom read the stuff about the specific things the author wants looked at...they may not be the problem. I always reckon its better to just read and crit.
The author can then choose what they want to take from your crit.
quote:When I crit a piece, I do so with the intention of pointing out any and all (unless there are loads) problems with the piece as I see it. I am not going to be nice and pretend I liked something if I didn't--that's plain stupid. But it is all my opinion...and so is not worth much.
Oh boy, this is worth at least another 10 posts.
Let me get the marshmellows and hotdogs. The fire is going to get hot.
How about we stop with the rules and the critiquing methods and so on, and get back to philocinemas' depth perceptions (so to speak)?
Are there techniques we can learn from in these quoted 13 lines (and the others zerostone has quoted for us)? Can we figure out how the authors have conveyed "depth" in these 13 lines?
Can anyone beside philocinemas and Doc Brown (my apologies if I've missed someone here) find useful things in the 13 lines that we can study?
quote:Can anyone beside philocinemas and Doc Brown (my apologies if I've missed someone here) find useful things in the 13 lines that we can study?
Though I haven't seen it in the first 13s on this site, a very VERY useful thing we can see in the first 13 is: Does it have a point? Are we getting anywhere, or are we still looking at description? Does it look like the story is actually moving forward?
My own opinion is that one only needs a certain amount of setup, and if one needs 13 lines to describe a "picture" then the writer is just showing off. I think today's readers have less patience with the flowery prose, or meandering descriptions of setting, than a couple generations ago. Maybe an okay way to start a novel, but not a short story.
posted
In a certain way, the First Thirteen argument reminds me of the "pre-school" argument. "You won't get into an Ivy League college unless you went to the right prep school...you won't get into the right prep school if you didn't attend the right high school...you won't get into the right high school if you don't get into the right grade school...you won't get into the right grade school if you haven't gone to the right pre-school...you won't get into the right pre-school if you weren't placed in the right neo-natal care unit..."
You get the idea. An endless chain of consequences from an ill choice at the beginning. But the guys at Harvard and Yale and so on swear up and down that they don't care where anybody who applies went to pre-school. They care (apparently) about what level they're at then-and-there.
Certainly the First Thirteen is of little value of importance to both me-as-a-reader and me-as-a-buyer-of-books-and-magazines. Is it of value to the editorial staff and first readers? Is it more or less important than other factors?
posted
Thirteen lines, 65 characters per line is the potential real estate of the better half of an opening page formatted in standard manuscript format. The page sink, title, byline, and a line break take up the upper, lesser half. Twenty-five lines to a standard manuscript page, nine lines for the page sink (including contact information in upper corner as indicated in submission guidelines), one line for the title, a byline line, a line break, and then the thirteen lines of opening text. That's what it's all about, the first visible text of a manuscript that a screening reader takes notice of.
A writer's goal for the title page's thirteen lines is to not turn off a screening reader immediately. In other words, don't raise any objections. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. That's all that Thirteen Lines is all about. Poor presentation, misspelled words, grossly improper punctuation, weak mechanical style in the first lines, no promise of a good story, and the manuscript doesn't even make its way entirely out of the envelope at a screener's reading station.
Picture the screening reader confronted with a reading quota, say one hundred short fiction manuscripts to read before lunchtime. From the top of the stack, in no particular order, the first selected enevelope is taped shut with package strapping tape, impossible to open without destroying the manuscript. Nope, no sense in even opening the envelope. Into the No Pile it goes unopened. One second and it's done for. Professional writers know a "plain brown wrapper" approach raises the least objections.
The next manuscript, printed out in fancy 9-point Papyrus typeface. Unreadable. Into the No Pile. A few seconds, at best, and it's done for.
The title of the next is formatted in 16-point type, bold, all caps, and bracketed with quote marks. Into the No Pile before the first word of the story is even read.
And so it goes, like a beaucratic clerk in a zoning office, a screening reader's job is to say no. He or she makes snap decisions based on hundreds of objective criteria scanned in an instant. Give him or her a reason in the first thirteen to reject and the story's done for.
Subjective criteria for objection present upon actual reading: aesthtic storytelling talent and skill. Again, any objections presenting in the first thirteen and it's done for. Imagine the screening reader's disappointment when a story's promise means it came all the way out of the envelope, and it doesn't quite achieve full realization, the time wasted reading toward a sagging middle and putting it down incompleted, an almost-ran read all the way through to an unsatisfying resolution. Imagine the once-in-a-blue-moon joy when a ripping good story captivates the screening reader and it's eagerly promoted to the next screening level.
The title page's thirteen lines is a manuscript's real estate that elicits that unequivocal no or not. The ones that pass that first muster, they're read a little further, until the detriments of the actual storytelling turn the screening reader out. Read all the way through, because there's a promise of a good story in the thirteen lines, that's not spoiled later on, few and far between. Read and acquired, less than 1 percent, because the entire package is tight, professional, and entertaining and wanted for publication.
There's a nearly infinite number of potential stylistic objections raiseable in thirteen lines, some objective, some subjective. The entire focus a writer's best practices would put into those 130-some-odd words is not raising any objections, in the meantime, introducing the promise of a good story.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited June 27, 2009).]
posted
So what "extrinsic" says is that any submission I might make is at the mercy of someone who won't look at the story past the first page, and for the most petty of reasons.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're leaving out the _personal_ aspect in this discussion. I'm no better at imagining what a theoretical editor might think than I am at predicting the future (bad, by the way) but if I were pitched these stories here's what I would conclude if I had to go on nothing but the lines posted here:
THE GODDAMNED TOOTH FAIRY
Very realistic depiction of something I don't find interesting in the least. I don't care about some guy and his kid. Everyone knows this guy, or is this guy, or is trying to avoid this guy. I don't like the vulgarity in the title. Circular file.
THE BALANCE IN THE STORM
Interesting spin on a mundane experience that resonates with me. Has enough unexplained that I'll read on. Old life, new life? Borderlands and mortal? Enough odd details and potential subtext that I'm left wondering 'will it matter to the story?' Read on.
THE BEASTLY RED LURKER A GOTHIC EXCESS
I love a good jab at a genre but this has been done. The name Mudcatt puts me off, is this farce or or a serious attempt? The language seems slightly wrong, as if the author isn't fully knowledgeable of the genre, or is purposely introducing modern vocabulary (spread, drool-inspiring). Read on, but be prepared to be disappointed.
CHILD OF MINE
Weird. I don't know what to expect. I like the phrase "Spanish purr." Should I know this? What does it sound like? I'll bite. Read on.
What I conclude from these exercises, here and in previous and subsequent posts, is that no amount of good writing or 'depth' can make up for the fact that I _don't care_ about certain things (single dads and kids, deer being hit by trucks, talking dogs, anything to do with voice mail, etc.) and there is no clever and crafty writing that can make me interested. The flip side to this is that I'll read anything that is even halfway credible if it includes cats (being treated with respect), people acting like cats, or if it seems like it is science fiction or is set in space, especially if it includes a character named Eet. (I am only joking a little.)
I've heard that many editors are people and I deduce that some of them may have similar biases. For example, maybe an editor who is a single dad would like story one, but I don't know, and I don't care. I doubt I'll ever write or read a story like that.
None of these excerpts strike me as particularly literary in nature or particularly 'deep'. This isn't a requirement for me, it has to be a good story first, and to be a good story it has to be about something that is interesting to _me_ (the center of the universe).
Finally, I fall firmly in the 13 lines, 'will I read on?' camp. That is what being 'hooked' means to me.
quote:What I conclude from these exercises, here and in previous and subsequent posts, is that no amount of good writing or 'depth' can make up for the fact that I _don't care_ about certain things (single dads and kids, deer being hit by trucks, talking dogs, anything to do with voice mail, etc.) and there is no clever and crafty writing that can make me interested. The flip side to this is that I'll read anything that is even halfway credible if it includes cats (being treated with respect), people acting like cats, or if it seems like it is science fiction or is set in space, especially if it includes a character named Eet. (I am only joking a little.)
I've heard that many editors are people and I deduce that some of them may have similar biases. For example, maybe an editor who is a single dad would like story one, but I don't know, and I don't care. I doubt I'll ever write or read a story like that. This isn't a requirement for me, it has to be a good story first, and to be a good story it has to be about something that is interesting to _me_ (the center of the universe).
This is my view as well...subject matter, what the story is about, is, for me, the only real "hook" involved in a story. I wouldn't be surprised if its the same for some editors.
posted
I believe the root of the dilemma is that every reader does not have the same taste. Thus when you look at a story in a magazine, you are not looking at what was put there to hook you, but it is for the myriad of readers who might pick up the magazine and the subscribers whose subscriptions are about to expire. The editors have the task of choosing which stories would have the greatest appeal while remaining within the genre. This is why I say these stories are about the editors and not about the individual reader. The editors are ultimately representative of what they see as universal appeal.
...and a Spanish purr is when the r-sound is rolled like "r-h-r-h-r" in certain Spanish words with double r's.
quote:I am most interested in what you meant by the last commonality that you mentioned - the larger than life character. In what way do you perceive these characters as being larger than life?
Here are my responses:
In THE GODDAMNED TOOTH FAIRY the character Callie dominates the first thirteen lines. She is sitting on a table, shoving her hands in her father's face. She's not quite Scarlett O'Hara, but still her outrageous behavior makes her larger than life.
In the first thirteen lines of THE BEASTLY RED LURKER everything Mudcatt does is larger than life. He talks about heat boils in the desert. He sits at a sumptuous banquet with an empty plate. This behavior is disturbing to at least one of the guests. This character is shown to be much larger than life . . . I'd put Mudcatt up against Sherlock Holmes any day.
In CHILD OF MINE the unnamed bony-fingered woman is shown to be outrageously demanding and kinky. Her movements are described as "epileptic frenzy." This woman is clearly larger than life.
Larger than life characters like Mudcatt or Elizabeth Bennett or Huckleberry Finn attract me to a story. I believe a lot of readers find such characters attractive.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited June 30, 2009).]
posted
I hadn't thought about the "larger than life" characteristic as opposed to "the generic character that you don't really want to know more about".
I'm amazed all those characters feel like "larger than life" in just a few lines.
I can usually tell if a character has that quality if, after a few moments of being with him or her, I want backstory. I find myself wondering "who were his parents?", "how did she break her pinkie finger?", "what is her favorite cereal?". The strange thing is, I feel like they become movie stars, so everything they do is somehow "special".
Printer-friendly view of this topic
