Writing Log Update: Interpreting Feedback
So, I’m not sure how long this will last, but I’m writing during breakfast to try to make sure that I stick to a more consistent schedule. Today’s blog is going to be a sort of mid-writing log update on The Independent (a space-“trucker” type story that I finished a couple of months ago). I’ve sent it off to a couple of markets–I won’t name them–but I do want to touch on some of their feedback.that I’ve received so far.
Market #1 — Too Slow to Get to the Action
The first market that I sent the story to liked the beginning, felt that my characters were pretty well fleshed out and felt that I had a fairly well drawn out world. After reading that beginning statement, I felt pride in doing a good job on what I’d set out to do with the story — make my characters and my world-building a little more consistent and real. However, the market declined to publish my story (no animus here) because they felt that it took to long to get to the action. I believe the approximate wording was something like: “We, at X publication, believe the writer should start where the story begins and felt that the story took too long to get going.” Again, these are the approximate words as the market uses a submission manager and I’d have to go back and log in again to get the exact wording. Also, even though it seems like I’m being sarcastic, I’m actually not–this is what the business of writing is all about. I actually am “blessed” in that the story was good enough to get feedback–unless the market actually says you’ll get feedback, you know your story has promise when editors take time to comment on it. So, my takeaway for this market is that they liked the action in the 2nd half of the story, but felt that all the world-building and characterization that I did in the first half was too much. I slowed the story down too much for their tastes.
Market #2 — The Beginning Caught My Attention, but the Story Ultimately Ended Conventionally
This market had the exact opposite concerns. They highlighted the fact that the beginning really caught their attention and felt unique to them. However, they noted that the ending followed on a fairly conventional narrative structure that they felt hindered the story. In this case, the editor loved the slower, more character-based narrative with the extra attention to detail with both characterization and world-building. However, when I moved to the “action” part of the story, the narrative didn’t hold up for the editor and he ultimately decided to pass. Now, again, getting feedback from the editor was valuable and, even though it was a rejection, I still feel a sense of pride, in that, this market is a “major” market, and I don’t remember getting personal feedback from here before (that I can recall). I feel that I’m slowly moving in the right direction and I feel that this story has potential.
Interpreting Feedback
Okay, so I have two pieces of feedback that are exact opposites of each other. One says that I should start the action sooner and eliminate some of the characterization and the world-building at the beginning. The other seems to indicate that, no, the characterization and world-building are strong, so keep that and go with a more contemplative ending rather than one that is focused on action.
This is where writers get into trouble–who’s right? Which is the best path forward for the story. As a writer, I can see three solutions to this problem:
Revise the story and make the action the focus (cut part of the beginning and get the action going sooner)Revise the story and make the character/world-building the focus (rewrite the conflict and the ending so that it matches the tone of the beginning)Leave the story as is (Do nothing and continue to submit until you find an editor or market that loves both parts.
Now, as the writer I can do any or all of these things. I can choose one (action/character) over the other or I can do nothing at all. The thing is, I can’t tell you what you should choose as a writer–that choice depends upon your conception of the story and your own personal goals for the story. I want to have an action story, but I also want practice more with characterization. So for me, I’m considering a fourth option:
I’m either going to split the story into two (2) different stories–one where it is character-based and one action-based, or i’m going to do option 3 and leave it alone. I’m leaning towards splitting the stories and I’ve already started brainstorming possible conflicts for the character-based version of the story. Maybe the “action” story occurs when the protagonist is older and wiser? I’m still early in the process. I’ll probably still send it out to a couple more markets before Christmas, but if there are no takers, I’ll probably use Christmas Break to split it into two stories and see what happens then.
Writing, while having business considerations, is also an art. The artist has to know what his or her intentions are with the piece in order to better navigate the feedback given in regards to the business side of the craft.
Sidney
Please consider supporting these fine small press publishers where my work has appeared:
Read Skin Deep for Free at Aurora WolfRead Childe Roland for Free at Electric Spec
Purchase HawkeMoon on Amazon.com (Paperback) or eBookPurchase Dragonhawk on Amazon.com (Paperback) or KindlePurchase WarLight on Amazon.com (Paperback) or KindlePurchase Ship of Shadows on Amazon.com (Paperback) or KindlePurchase Faerie Knight on Amazon.com (Paperback) or Kindle
Currently Working On (8/2020):
“Project Wall” (Science Fiction Story)
Drafting: 2nd Draft
Unhallowed (Weird Western Story)
Revising: 2nd Draft (Working Draft)
KnightWatch Graphic Novel (Fantasy Graphic Novel)
Drafting: 1st Draft (Issue 1)
