Furry Writers' Guild Forum

"Live slush pile" panel concept

General Writing Discussion
#21

Because most fandom writers are writing in fandom, I feel that a slushpile discussion would still be worthwhile, as long as those who may look to one day submit outside the fandom knows that fandom standards are probably quite a bit lower than those outside the fandom (or possibly higher, depending on the market).

I think it would be advantageous, if this is done, to have at least one of the fandom publishers attend (as they essentially act as aquisition editors and more for their company), probably one or two experienced anthologies editors, and maybe at least one person who has edited for or has publications accepted outside of the fandom.

It would be nice if we could get some in-house editors from publishing companies outside the fandom, though I doubt that happening at a furry convention.

#22

I also think that if the editors submitted only their own pieces, the pages would not have to be anonymous, and that would cut out a lot of tension. And Sean, if we are going to have a slush pile panel that is focused on non-fandom expectations we would absolutely need the input of such an editor (even if it’s an interview) or we shouldn’t even approach it with that angle.

#23

If the editors only submit their own pieces and talk about them, then it’s not really a live slush pile panel at all anymore. The point is that, in addition to seeing how works are evaluated generally by editors, the writers submitting their pages are getting first-impression-type feedback on those specific pieces. That’s at least half the appeal of the concept in the first place.

#24

Not to mention that not all of the editors write.

#25
Not to mention that not all of the editors write.
I'm of the opinion that editors should know how to write to some degree and writers should know how to edit to some degree. We'll always better at one or the other, but an editor needs to have some familiarity with the craft before I'd trust their judgments.

Perhaps make it clear that this panel is more about first impressions rather than “acceptance” and “rejection,” then. As I mentioned before (I think in some semblance of detail) that those decisions aren’t made so swiftly, and our impressions in front of an audience aren’t going to be the same as our impressions in private, or in front of an editing team. I’d also suggest making some room for some audience input. I can tell you right now that the audience sitting in silence for an extended period of time is going to be awkward.

#26

My comment was less “The editors can’t write” but rather “The editors don’t prefer to write”. I obviously can’t speak for others, but I get extremely bored of writing, and find editing to be much more interesting.

I would hope that editors wouldn’t be editing if they didn’t have a familiarity with the craft of writing.

#27

I think if you’re willing to tear into people on a live stage, though, it’s only courteous to do the same to yourselves. One page really isn’t very much writing at all. I think it will also make you think harder about what you have to say about the pieces that aren’t yours. It’s just… if the aim is to show an accurate depiction of what’s going through an editor’s head with a first impression, an impression on stage is not necessarily going to be representative?

#28

I think this is perhaps an unduly dark reading of the point of this panel. Saying “this is the point in the story where I would stop reading and here is why” isn’t the same as saying “here is where I determined the story was dog poop and that you are an awful writer who should take up a hobby that does not involve words.”

I confess to having some concerns with the “I’m a blunt harsh critic and if you don’t like it you can kiss my grits” attitude that I see thrown around occasionally, but any editor with the common sense God gave a tulip would think twice about being an unkind ass in a situation where word about their attitude would quickly circulate among the very small pool of writers in our community. Or, as a friend observed many years ago, “If you don’t understand why ‘professional courtesy’ is important, you’re not a professional.”

#29

It looks like good points are being made on both sides here. I still really like the idea of a panel for this, and find myself agreeing with Chipotle here. Either way though, I really want to make sure Sterling reads the entirety of this thread and see what he has to say on the matter. He and Bliz have steered the Writing Track at RF in the right direction for a few years now, so I have no doubt they’ll make the right call on this as well.

#30

It’s not so much a dark reading as “here is a situation where you might have good intentions, but the message is lost in translation due to the Editor/Writer wall and the complexity of the subject matter.” This panel could be a thoroughly positive experience, but I didn’t see much in-depth commentary on the subject matter, and I actually did see a bit of a push for a “deal with it” attitude from some of the posts on this thread. My impression of this panel is only based on the proposal presented (and some of the commentary) and I do have concerns. I think you should all have concerns, and use those concerns to turn the panel into something people will walk away with as a good experience.

If folks prefer to have a trial-and-error approach to this and just wing it, though, hopefully it turns out well.

#31

At my Authors of the Flathead conference we’ve started doing a “First Impressions” panel. The visiting presenters (including published authors, editors, and agents) listen while a designated reader reads the first page of a manuscript. (The author does not read their own work).

It is submitted, and critiqued, anonymously.

The writer does not have to come forward. The panelists generally raise their hands when they would stop reading if the piece appeared in their slush pile, then they analyze why. We stress to them the importance of constructive, helpful feedback. They are pros and none of them would dream of hurting an author on purpose. Rather they focus on the writing and what turned them off (or on!)

Everyone who attends the panel, regardless of whether their pieces are read, have found it an interesting and informative process.

#32

I like the idea of calling it “First Impressions.” I think that helps get across the idea that it isn’t necessarily supposed to serve as a complete in-depth look at every single aspect an editor considers in a manuscript.

#33

I like the idea of anonymity. I think that would encourage more writers to submit, as they don’t have to worry about the possibility of being publicly humiliated. For an editor as well, I think it takes some of the pressure of to be ‘overly-nice’ to a known author, and will encourage them to speak more honestly.

#34

This is a thing I want to happen.

#35

We’re both going to have to chip away at Kits about it. He agrees more with George thus far >.<

#36

Piping up again since this panel has enjoyed success at the last two conferences in which I’ve had a hand.

The success and failure can largely be steered by how it is presented, the attitudes both of those doing the critiquing, and those being critiqued (and those who are simply watching). Writers who intend to submit for publication or any kind of feedback, ever, at all, must begin developing a thick skin. Even when critique is put as gently, supportively, and constructively as possible, it still stings to know we aren’t absolutely perfect the first time around or that maybe not everyone likes what we do. Or that something wasn’t understood in the way we meant. But that’s what critique and feedback are for.

Editors who intend to work in the profession and be paid for it must learn to develop tact. Putting them on stage, to me, seems a good exercise in tact and in clarifying, for the betterment of all, what they’re looking for. (I guess they don’t have to develop tact, but to me, that puts them in the same bucket as authors who can’t handle rejection or criticism and write nasty responses to rejection letters. I doubt anyone reading this forum falls into either of those categories :smiley: )

If everyone goes in with a positive mindset, there to learn, possibly learn their work is better than they thought OR get some ideas of how their work is perceived upon first glance and could be improved, then it can all go swimmingly.

Not everyone will agree. Not everyone will react the same to hearing something live as reading it privately at their desk. When asked to critique, we critique. We critique much more thoroughly when we’re wearing our Editor or Beta Reader hats than when we curl up on the couch with hot tea and plunge into a book.

Attitude and the participants are everything. I highly recommend one or two volunteer readers, and anonymity.

And I have to argue-- you can tell a lot about a writer’s skill level and grasp on story by a single page sample. Some times, that’s all they get when the editor is going through the slush. The trick is if you can make them want the next page.

#37

Recruitment Sequence, initiate!

So, Copper, since you’re coming to RF this year, and you happen to have experience with these panels, would it be at all possible to bribe you into heading a panel like this?

#38

I think I might pitch a ‘How To Get Your Story Rejected’ panel for ConFuzzled - just talking about what constitutes a turnoff, both generally and subjectively, without specific examples (although you just know someone will assume I’m referring to them…)

#39

You should make a thread in the forum about that topic. I think it would be a valuable discussion.

#40

Ooh, yes! I’ll do that nearer the time and steal everyone’s ideas :slight_smile: