Three Bits of Publicity Make a Post
Over at Omnivoracious, Jeff VanderMeer asked me to name five ways you can plant real-life seeds of change, since, you know, I edited a book called Seeds of Change.
In other VanderMeer-related news, Horia Ursu, who recently blogged about Seeds in Romanian, is guest-blogging this week at VanderMeer’s Ecstatic Days blog, and had this to say: “John Joseph Adams was kind enough to indulge my pleas and e-mailed electronic copies of Wastelands (the best reprint themed anthology I have read this last couple years!) and of his then-forthcoming, now freshly trailered Seeds of Change, where at least half of the stories will (or deserve to) show up in next year’s awards final ballots. This book reminded me why I started to love science fiction in the first place, with the stories’ focus on the paradigms of change and an almost militant engagement that stands out in a sea of simple entertainment.” Wow, that’s some praise right there!
And finally, I’m included in the latest SF Signal Mind Meld, which asks “What would you change about the SF/fantasy field?” Excerpt from my contribution: “From an editorial perspective, I think maybe that we don’t often enough challenge writers to be great. Not all stories (or writers) have greatness inside of them, but I think that perhaps too often we accept and publish good stories that truly could be great if the writer was just pushed to *make it* great. It seems like editors used to do this routinely, if one can accept the statements one reads in historical accounts at face value. Editors like John W. Campbell and Harlan Ellison are frequently cited as having done a lot to mold and shape the fiction they published. It could be that this is still happening today, but I don’t hear about it very often and don’t often see it–instead I find myself reading good stories in which I find greatness lurking inside them. I don’t know what the reason for this is, or even if it is a true problem–good stories are, after all *good*–but it’s something I’ve been thinking about.”
N.E. Lilly
11:21 am Aug-20-2008On your contribution to SF Signal…
I received a good story that could have been great. I tried to guide the writer to push the boundaries, but they didn’t quite get it. There were only so many revisions that I felt justified in asking for. It was frustrating for me to see what the story could be, but not get that greatness back in the story. It’s still a good story, but it really could have been phenomenal… It still troubles me a bit that I’ve accepted the story (and it’s still a pretty decent story) but that the greatness that I see in the story isn’t laid bare (the greatness that kept me awake the first night after I read it, my mind racing with the implications of the story).
I’m not sure if the problem was my short comings as an editor, or the writer’s short comings as a writer. I’m willing to learn. What do you suggest for drawing out greatness that’s lurking in a story?
Matthew Sanborn Smith
2:02 pm Aug-20-2008I think you’re right about the “greatness” part of this post. I was reading comments on The Velcro City Tourist Board just an hour ago. The post was about how subscriptions alone weren’t going to save the mags. I know people read less, but I think that better stories would increase readership. The big mags already get the top writers in the field, so shelling out more money (which, I imagine, you don’t have anyway) isn’t going to attract better talent.
I have gotten feedback from editors who wanted to see rewrites. In two cases I sent back reworked stories that were much better than the originals and subsequently sold. Honestly though, I would not have reworked those stories if the editors hadn’t asked to see them a second time. If I get feedback with a flat out rejection, I’ll consider that feedback for stories I write in the future, but I’m not necessarily going to rewrite the original story before sending it along to the next market because tastes vary.
I don’t know how some big names would react to an editor asking for more from a story they had submitted. Maybe there’s some fear of offending the writer on the editor’s part, I don’t know. But I know that stories can be made better by an editor willing to make suggestions and a writer willing to rewrite and it can only mean better things for that editor, that writer and especially the reader.
David L.Erickson
6:04 am Aug-29-2008I don’t belive that sci-fi novels lack the greatness they once had. I’ve read several this past year that I thought were truly great. Stehpen Coonts ‘Saucer’, and Dean Koontz ‘One Doorway From Heaven’ are just two. Writing styles have changed from the days of Asimov’s ‘Foundation’ series, which, while entertaining, was overly wordy. Sometimes the tale tended to get lost in the detail, which is why I shy away from many of the novels written by today’s ‘greats’. While I cut my teeth on James Michener’s ‘Bridge at Andau’, his later works became so literay as to drown the reader in detail.
I like a great story, not a study in massive detail.
Perhaps I reflect the new age of readers, or maybe just an offshoot.