# Differences between "Good" and "Publishable"



## luckyscars (Jul 20, 2019)

Wasn't sure whether to drop this in Publishing Discussion or here but figured it's kind of something that goes beyond publishing...

Just finished up and started the submission cycle of a newly born short story & not totally sold on this one, even though I think in many ways it's one of my best stories to date.

What I am starting to perceive, at least in the SS market, is that a lot of stories that are really good (in terms of standard of writing, originality of concept, and strength of story overall) are not necessarily the ones that are wanted. 

For example, I just sold a horror story I deliberately dumbed down after the publisher said the original story I sent had "too much message" (!) but said I could submit another so long as it was before the deadline on July 15, which was less than a week away at that point. The story I sent was very hammy. It was literally the least effort I had put into a story this year. It wasn't bad exactly, but compared to the one I originally sent in it was pretty...mediocre. I wrote it in one night and story-wise it was essentially Stephen King meets South Park, like it had every cliche the theme called for. It even had a few typos because I basically wasn't that invested when I redrafted. They wrote back within 48 hours and accepted it immediately. 

Which brings me to the point: Which was that I wonder what the disconnect is, assuming of course that there is one, between _good_ writing and _publishable_ writing? 

It wasn't just me who thought those rejected stories were better than the accepted ones. What I am finding in particular is that stories that are kind of fluid and difficult-to-pigeon-hole are particularly vulnerable to becoming commercially homeless, because there is so much emphasis these days on  genre and grouping to themes that are considered a draw. I had always thought that originality was the main asset to a story, and I still do, but this does not seem to be the case when it comes to the industry right now: The cartoonish horror, the tropey science fiction, a lot of genre fiction seems to want stories that are SUPER genre-y. They want _ham._ They don't necessarily want originality, at least not to the point it stops being easily identifiable as [genre].

..Which means whenever a story occupies a place that isn't quite horror, isn't quite mystery, etc, I'm wondering if it's just always gonna be a harder sell? I currently have six stories that I have indefinitely retired from pursuing publication of, because I submitted them all over the place (100+ places) and nobody wanted to bite and it got to being tedious and intrusive on my time. These are all stories that fall into that no-mans-land. But they're also good stories.


----------



## Aquilo (Jul 20, 2019)

I'm not keen on the 'dumbing down' tag. Mostly it's just writing to market. And with writing to market...

Most if it is down to comfort zones. Readers themselves are diverse, and are willing to try anything. However, they are also set in their ways, going to one publisher for a light read, another publisher for a darker read. It's why publishers delve into different lines: the one I work with has three: DSP main MM romance. Then DSPP, which is the darker line, where you can place horror, then Harmony Ink, which is YA LGBT work. But even with those, they are the mainstream in my genre, where you can also get more niche markets. If the publisher is suggesting a change, whether you feel it's right or wrong, it can come down to them just knowing their readers' tastes better than you. 

There's always a plus, though: It's your work. It's up to you whether you sign the contract or not.

I know when I subbed one novel, that publisher said they couldn't take on a novel where the main MCS to the relationship didn't meet until chapter 6. They said with it being romance, they needed to meet in the first, could I change it? That novel was a psych thriller hybrid, where I couldn't have the two lovers meeting in the first chapter without screwing up the plot. In the end, I didn't choose to go with that publisher because I didn't want to compromise my story. It was taken on by a niche publisher later.

On the whole, readers are fantastic, but publishers can and will work to their own readership. You have to respect that. Sometimes your work doesn't fit that particular readership so you either change or walk away. But there are always other options out there.

It's just finding them.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 20, 2019)

Without seeing the material, I can offer one possibility: You may write better when you are loose and casual. Possibly you are trying too hard on some pieces, and it shows in the work. Dunno.

I personally write best when I am swinging for the fences by writing with wanton abandon. When I get self-conscious, my work is not as good. Sure, it's mechanically sound, but the stuff I write freely seems to breathe.

Is it possible that you are too formal on some of those pieces?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 20, 2019)

Yes, I have read books and wondered, "Why was this ever published?" And then I realized -- a _synopsis _of this story would sound really interesting. I imagined a short description for each character, and those would have been interesting too! If the publisher just looks at those, then the agent just needs to look at those, and the actual boring book with flat characters becomes irrelevant.

And the story is that Harry Potter was accepted for publication only because the publisher accidentally got the opinion from someone in the target audience.

And of course the dominant factor for whether a book is published is whether or not the author has published before. It seems to be that little work sometimes goes into a book by a well-known author.

Argh, you shouldn't have gotten me started. I read a Patterson novel and said to myself, there must be something good in this book. And I realized, there was! Several things. Then I read the blurb for the book, and everything I identified was in the blurb!


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 20, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> Yes, I have read books and wondered, "Why was this ever published?" And then I realized -- a _synopsis _of this story would sound really interesting. I imagined a short description for each character, and those would have been interesting too! If the publisher just looks at those, then the agent just needs to look at those, and the actual boring book with flat characters becomes irrelevant.
> 
> And the story is that Harry Potter was accepted for publication only because the publisher accidentally got the opinion from someone in the target audience.
> 
> ...



Yeah you know I think that may be part of it. Usually my submission cover letter includes a paragraph overview (they're only short stories so no synopsis is requested) and I do tend to struggle with writing the summary on stories that are, well, kind of difficult to summarize. But I also find it a little hard to believe that publishers no matter how overworked they are aren't actually reading short stories at least somewhat before kitting the reject button. Maybe I'm underestimating the fatigue of the editors though (?)

I mean, maybe it literally comes down to them skimming for whatever buzzwords  fit the theme ('vampire', 'murder', 'corpse', whatever) and when those items don't appear it's basically a nah. In which case, fine, but my response to that is gonna be 'fuck off pretending like you want something original then!'



Ralph Rotten said:


> Without seeing the material, I can offer one possibility: You may write better when you are loose and casual. Possibly you are trying too hard on some pieces, and it shows in the work. Dunno.
> 
> I personally write best when I am swinging for the fences by writing with wanton abandon. When I get self-conscious, my work is not as good. Sure, it's mechanically sound, but the stuff I write freely seems to breathe.
> 
> Is it possible that you are too formal on some of those pieces?



Possible. It's weird though because if it was really an issue of less serious = better story I feel like my beta readers (I usually have at least three unrelated people read my work and I try to rotate) would have told me. As it was the response to the story that got accepted was kind of "Um, it's okay." Which is weird, that an 'um it's okay' story is making money.

Different folks different strokes maybe, I guess.



Aquilo said:


> I'm not keen on the 'dumbing down' tag. Mostly it's just writing to market. And with writing to market...
> 
> Most if it is down to comfort zones. Readers themselves are diverse, and are willing to try anything. However, they are also set in their ways, going to one publisher for a light read, another publisher for a darker read. It's why publishers delve into different lines: the one I work with has three: DSP main MM romance. Then DSPP, which is the darker line, where you can place horror, then Harmony Ink, which is YA LGBT work. But even with those, they are the mainstream in my genre, where you can also get more niche markets. If the publisher is suggesting a change, whether you feel it's right or wrong, it can come down to them just knowing their readers' tastes better than you.
> 
> ...



I only meant 'dumbing down' in reference to the irony that work in which I had put minimal creative investment but maximum working-to-formula got accepted in pretty much record time while other stories that I (and my betas...) have said 'wow this really is good!' can gain nothing but 'sorry, not right for us'.

But yeah, I do understand the market argument. There is a reason why there are more burger joints in America than places than there are places that sell Somali camel 'n' rice, right? I guess my issue is that I don't necessarily think this adds up to quality, let alone originality, being the main factor. 

I am working through an anthology by Crystal Lake Publishing at the moment (who I generally admire for the quality of their authorship) and it strikes me just how lousy so many of the stories in it are. Then I read the author bios and find out the author has sold _hundreds _of short stories. But one thing I can say is these 'lousy' stories do pretty closely stick to the anthology's theme.

Here's an example. A piece of flash on here I wrote that one LM in March is one of the six pieces I mentioned I have not been able to sell anywhere despite sending them everywhere. It's also a piece that is fairly absent of genre, it's literary fiction really. 

Now that doesn't prove anything in itself, of course, but it does indicate to me that it may just be generally harder to sell pieces that don't adhere solidly to a defined theme, which I guess makes sense given anthologies do tend to be theme specific. This however may mean I have to start staying away from that kind of material as there is no point writing stories that won't get pay dirt. 

Unless I'm not seeing clearly.


----------



## Aquilo (Jul 21, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I guess my issue is that I don't necessarily think this adds up to quality, let alone originality, being the main factor.



I agree completely. There some authors out there who have such amazing talent, and they'll on a few reviews on Amazon, yet then there's the author scams out there that see rubbish gain 200+. I read some rubbish too, and it's there: how the hell did this get published?


----------



## Fatclub (Jul 21, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> In which case, fine, but my response to that is gonna be 'fuck off pretending like *you want something original then!'*


Yes, it's frustrating, but I've also had experience of agents liking my book(s) but not having 'any experience of selling this type of fiction', because they sell formulaic stuff (my words now, not theirs), unless they have an established author's _name_ as the selling point..  

I do think that short term they know how to make money. But this can be damaging in the long term- if someone buys a crappy book due to a good selling point, the reader's less likely to buy another book (he may think 'I just don't like books').

I knew an agent (friend of a friend) who said he never read(s) books; he sussed out if the pitch was sellable and just took it straight to the publisher.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 22, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Here's an example. A piece of flash on here I wrote that one LM in March is one of the six pieces I mentioned I have not been able to sell anywhere despite sending them everywhere. It's also a piece that is fairly absent of genre, it's literary fiction really.



I'd say send those kind of stories to magazines asking for literary fiction. Lots of places prefer realistic/literary fiction to genre fiction; in fact, a lot of the bigger magazines do. Honestly, I see more literary journals publishing that kind of thing than I see them publishing genre stuff. Anthologies might be more genre-oriented, though... I don't know. 

That's not to say there aren't things that are inherently hard to publish... there are. "Literary" fiction with speculative (sci-fi or fantasy) elements has a much smaller market, from what I've seen. Rhyming poetry, too, or fiction with religious themes that's not "clean" or "wholesome" enough for the mainstream Christian market. But realistic literary fiction? There's tons of journals and magazines that publish exclusively that.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 22, 2019)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> I'd say send those kind of stories to magazines asking for literary fiction. Lots of places prefer realistic/literary fiction to genre fiction; in fact, a lot of the bigger magazines do. Honestly, I see more literary journals publishing that kind of thing than I see them publishing genre stuff. Anthologies might be more genre-oriented, though... I don't know.
> 
> That's not to say there aren't things that are inherently hard to publish... there are. "Literary" fiction with speculative (sci-fi or fantasy) elements has a much smaller market, from what I've seen. Rhyming poetry, too, or fiction with religious themes that's not "clean" or "wholesome" enough for the mainstream Christian market. But realistic literary fiction? There's tons of journals and magazines that publish exclusively that.



Yeah that was just one easy example (because it's on here) but the others are all fairly literary, what I would call 'high brow', so that's definitely part of it. But I'm not really sure how to fix it.

What I find to be my biggest problem is that I do mostly write genre fiction, because that's my interest as far as story, but I write it in a literary way, because that's how I write. This has the great effect of alienating the literary folks, who it seems think that any story with magic or monsters or macabre shit is basically the equivalent of hardcore pornography in the Louvre, while being too...well, _literary _for a lot of genre fiction publishers who don't want stories that concern the human condition or emotional journeys or anything that really 'goes there'.

I know writing the above makes me sound like a pretentious ass, I'm not oblivious to that, but the point is that I am starting to think it is very easy to miss the mark between both genre and literary and this has to be a factor taken into account when planning a new project. Otherwise you end up with a pile of misfit.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 22, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Wasn't sure whether to drop this in Publishing Discussion or here but figured it's kind of something that goes beyond publishing...
> 
> Just finished up and started the submission cycle of a newly born short story & not totally sold on this one, even though I think in many ways it's one of my best stories to date.
> 
> ...



_Duuuuuude_, I feel you on this. I was hesitant to even look at this thread because I didn't want to get into some publishing argument. Everything I write is no man's land. I know it's good. Other writers know it's good (maybe not to everyone's taste, but we've all pulled worse off the shelves than what we put out). It's such a pointless argument. Really good, soul-searching stories languish while so much formulaic, saccharine BS gets bought. 

Have you watched the Black Mirror episode "Fifteen Million Merits"? It deals with this sort of thing--real art and soul vs commercial interests. 

I gave up on publishing short stories. There didn't seem to be any way to make a living on it. Of course, when I was still trying, there were so few paying markets, and most required that I pay postage (which I couldn't afford). Lots of long-running magazines were folding left and right, overcome by all the pop-up Internet competition (and then the competition would fold). Talebones was my first sale ($20), and it folded very soon after. I was published in Alienskin, but never paid the promised $10, so I gave up... 

I sent two stories to Talebones: "Turquoise Morning" and "A Difference of Six Degrees". Turquoise was a 2k dark fantasy about an assassin's school in some eternally dark realm. Hints some original worldbuilding, peoples, races. Before the male POV can graduate, he has to kill his roommate, a woman he's fallen in love with. He has 24 hrs to do it. Does have a twist ending. This one sold.

Six Degrees, however, is something I worked super, super hard on. It's 4k, science-fiction, set in a series of massive underground military/industrial bases. POV is a scientist/doctor/genetic engineer who's worked on the comparatively budget-slashed Project Nightshade for years. Project (one of several ongoing projects) has made a strange boy which is not human and is supposed to have crazy mindpowers the military wants... but he's not showing them what he's capable of. Several twists. Turns out this scientist POV has been sexually abusing the child--but was also purposefully directed by the company to do so without her even realizing it because the company thinks a psychological break will show them what they want to see (they can always clone another one now that the first has been made). Her emotional breakdown is the catalyst for his breakdown--and he kills everyone accidentally via this temporary insanity. So the cute little Lovecraftian abomination was the victim and because he went mad everyone died. Lots of neat themes, some a bit turned on their heads or turned up to eleven, people and scenes that get weirder as it goes. Lot in it... but nobody wants to publish this thing.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 22, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Yeah that was just one easy example (because it's on here) but the others are all fairly literary, what I would call 'high brow', so that's definitely part of it. But I'm not really sure how to fix it.
> 
> What I find to be my biggest problem is that I do mostly write genre fiction, because that's my interest as far as story, but I write it in a literary way, because that's how I write. This has the great effect of alienating the literary folks, who it seems think that any story with magic or monsters or macabre shit is basically the equivalent of hardcore pornography in the Louvre, while being too...well, _literary _for a lot of genre fiction publishers who don't want stories that concern the human condition or emotional journeys or anything that really 'goes there'.
> 
> I know writing the above makes me sound like a pretentious ass, I'm not oblivious to that, but the point is that I am starting to think it is very easy to miss the mark between both genre and literary and this has to be a factor taken into account when planning a new project. Otherwise you end up with a pile of misfit.



but it's a wonderful, deep pile of misfit! 

Dang, but this describes everything I write! Oh, the feels, the resigned humor. Oi, vey.


----------



## BornForBurning (Jul 22, 2019)

> genre fiction publishers don't want stories that concern the human condition or emotional journeys or anything that really 'goes there'.


The best genre fiction does though. For example I watched the original Predator for the first time last night and while it's known as being a guns and muscle type action film it's actual very emotive and raw. Almost surreal at times. Genre fiction is arguably more about the human condition than literary fiction is, it just cuts out all the smoke and mirrors imposed by 'real life.' 
I also see a lot of people saying 'I know it's good' in this thread. Honestly, I'm a very poor judge of my own writing. I'm too intimately familiar with my own beats, so reading something I've written as if I'm the audience is borderline impossible at times. I don't think I've ever said 'I know it's good' once in my entire life. I have said that something is good enough to be published (which did get published, in fact). But that's not the same as 'good,' in my book. It's very easy to overbake stuff and mistake that for competency. Because it seems like a _functional _piece of writing. Set-ups, pay-offs, tightly plotted. But if it doesn't emote, it'll suck. No matter how well plotted it is. This is why I've never taken the "write 500 words a day" advice. I only write when I'm passionate. I edit anytime. But I only really write when I am in love with a story. Because _emoting _using something that basically looks like chicken scratches to 99% of life on this planet? That is _hard. _


----------



## LCLee (Jul 22, 2019)

I recently viewed a short contest winner on another forum. I couldn’t make heads or tails from it.
I read it to my friends and none of them could make sense of it.
I wonder sometimes, if some are straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 22, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> What I find to be my biggest problem is that I do mostly write genre fiction, because that's my interest as far as story, but I write it in a literary way, because that's how I write. This has the great effect of alienating the literary folks, who it seems think that any story with magic or monsters or macabre shit is basically the equivalent of hardcore pornography in the Louvre, while being too...well, _literary _for a lot of genre fiction publishers who don't want stories that concern the human condition or emotional journeys or anything that really 'goes there'.



Try Strange Horizons, maybe? They're a more experimental speculative journal.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 22, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> ...It's very easy to overbake stuff and mistake that for competency. Because it seems like a _functional _piece of writing. Set-ups, pay-offs, tightly plotted. But if it doesn't emote, it'll suck. No matter how well plotted it is. This is why I've never taken the "write 500 words a day" advice.* I only write when I'm passionate*. I edit anytime. But I only really write when I am in love with a story. Because _emoting _using something that basically looks like chicken scratches to 99% of life on this planet? That is _hard. _




I think Born struck the nail on the head. When I get all self-conscious in my writing, I write _mechanically sound stuff_...but it lacks the passion because I am holding back, afraid of offending some random reader. But when I write with wanton abandon* my stories tend to be better.



*Writing with wanton abandon: ie; write like you don't give a fuck. Hold nothing back, say all those things you don't think the editor will like. Damn the torpedoes! Throw out all that PC stuff you learned on NPR.


----------



## Ma'am (Jul 24, 2019)

Well, first of all, a lot of it is just subjective. I edited an e-zine for a while and it wasn't extremely uncommon for one of us to love a story, another to hate it and a third to just be mildly bored by it. 

Also, as writers we are not always the best judge of our own work, apparently. I too have had what I considered my best stories rejected (repeatedly) and others snapped up by decent markets when I nearly didn't submit them since I didn't think they were good enough. 

And then when we get to well published novels, oh my. Sometimes I can't imagine why a novel is so wildly popular. But obviously that major publisher knows what their target market wants.

So... maybe it's better to not even think about it lol.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 24, 2019)

Ma'am said:


> Well, first of all, a lot of it is just subjective. I ran an e-zine for a while and it wasn't extremely uncommon for one of us to love a story, another to hate it and a third to just be mildly bored by it.
> 
> Also, as writers we are not always the best judge of our own work, apparently. I too have had what I considered my best stories rejected (repeatedly) and others snapped up by decent markets when I nearly didn't even submit them since I didn't think they were good enough.
> 
> ...



That's kind of what I was trying to get at earlier. I have seen some really bad published stuff--typos galore, can't spell to save their lives, no research put into it, inconsistent writing, wildly inconsistent characterization, plot holes _everywhere_, flat world building, deus ex everything, writer-can't-seem-to-write-a-coherent-sentence level of prose, dialogue that would be flattered to be called "wooden", paper thin characters, see-thru plots, predictable everything, where every minority character is an offensive stereotype, gratuitous torture porn because "he's a bad guy" and that's just the only way the author knows how to signify _eeeeeviiiilllll_, some of the worst sex scenes to be inked in the history of man... I mean, _books and stories so bad that you fear for the future of humanity_.  If-such-a-thing-as-"objectively-bad"-was-possible,-this-book-would-be-a-contender-for-the-title kinda bad.

I'm not trying to imply my writing's the best in the history, but it's better than _that_. I put more effort into it than _that_. 

I'm with you on the "better not to think about it". It gets so frustrating. Art is such a crapshoot.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 24, 2019)

I've actually kept a romance novel around for years on my bookshelves--alongside such titles as Brave New World, Pride and Prejudice, the Bible, 1984, War of the Worlds, The Brothers Karamazov, Jurassic Park--just because it was _sooooo baaaaaad_ that it might almost be _good? _Total nonsense plot; detestably boring, nonsensical characters; fake-o drama points, butchering of the English language--and the female lead had a dude's name. And it was full of "he woggled her", and "she woggled him". WTH is "woggle"? Also had the line "his sex was rigid" which everyone's split on because some people think it's great--so many in fact that romance now has the trope line "he put his sex in her sex, and they had sex."

And this thing was traditionally published and everything. Sexy, fancy, romantic blurb that makes it sound like this book has a snowball's chance in hell of giving you the feels. Supposedly, from a good author in good standing. My mom thought said "good author" had a stroke between books.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 24, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> I've actually kept a romance novel around for years on my bookshelves--alongside such titles as Brave New World, Pride and Prejudice, the Bible, 1984, War of the Worlds, The Brothers Karamazov, Jurassic Park--just because it was _sooooo baaaaaad_ that it might almost be _good? _Total nonsense plot; detestably boring, nonsensical characters; fake-o drama points, butchering of the English language--and the female lead had a dude's name. And it was full of "he woggled her", and "she woggled him". WTH is "woggle"? Also had the line "his sex was rigid" which everyone's split on because some people think it's great--so many in fact that romance now has the trope line "he put his sex in her sex, and they had sex."
> 
> And this thing was traditionally published and everything. Sexy, fancy, romantic blurb that makes it sound like this book has a snowball's chance in hell of giving you the feels. Supposedly, from a good author in good standing. My mom thought said "good author" had a stroke between books.



I honestly want you to read my fanfic and give me an honest assessment of it now. If your this good at picking out the faults of a story then you'd make one hell of an editor. Plus I think i need an honest opinion of my work so as to not fall into these pit's in the future.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 24, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> I honestly want you to read my fanfic and give me an honest assessment of it now. If your this good at picking out the faults of a story then you'd make one hell of an editor. Plus I think i need an honest opinion of my work so as to not fall into these pit's in the future.




No, I'm entirely too brutal an editor. I like having _friends_. 

Plus, there's no point to editing fanfic... Y'ain't gonna publish it without changing everything around anyway. Write yer own dang stories. 


I should be writing... (yeah!)


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 24, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> No, I'm entirely too brutal an editor. I like having _friends_.
> 
> Plus, there's no point to editing fanfic... Y'ain't gonna publish it without changing everything around anyway. Write yer own dang stories.
> 
> ...



I'd much rather have brutal honesty than someone that just sucks up to my face everytime i give them something to edit.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 25, 2019)

I think "good" is far too subjective to be determinable.

I think "publishable" is highly dependent on a lot of factors totally outside the MS itself.

Once you break in, it's easier to get a two-way conversation with publishing people who know what they're looking for, and that can help (ie. my agent regularly communicates with Big Five acquiring editors and is able to tell me what they're looking for). But before that? Write a lot, enjoy the process, throw it at the wall and see what sticks. I'm not sure there's a better way.

(Side note re: originality. My theory is that readers want SOME originality, mixed with some familiarity. Genres developed for a reason, after all. The familiar elements give readers something to stand on so they don't get completely disoriented by the story. If a story is TOO original, I think it'll find a limited audience.)


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 25, 2019)

Bayview said:


> My theory is that readers want SOME originality, mixed with some familiarity. Genres developed for a reason, after all. The familiar elements give readers something to stand on so they don't get completely disoriented by the story. If a story is TOO original, I think it'll find a limited audience.)



But isn’t that pretty stupid? 

I mean, what kind of friggin mouth breather gets “disoriented” by a story that is written clearly and coherently and with high narrative competence because “oh sorry it’s not recognizably a genre I am comfortable with”?

Like...fuck off, eh? 

i realize it’s not really something anybody can change.... I would just like it recognized as being incredibly stupid.  Best books I ever read were only really genre by the Feelings they created not because of the content.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 25, 2019)

I don't know about that, lucky. It seemed like Bayview meant "TOO original" the same way I meant "bad"

TOO original.... hmm... 

Written in a completely new type of Wingdings but marketed as English. Every chapter is a nonsensical anagram of the previous chapters. Entire book is written in invisible ink and fourteen layers of code. Story is written in hexadecimal, has no setting, has no characters, has no plot, has no words, has no letters, has no punctuation. The ink has been blurred by "tears" of the writer to such an extent that no one can make anything meaningful out of it. Story was written by a cat climbing over the keyboard over all seventeen years of its life. Story is implied via pasted together images---which could possibly work if the images themselves made for a coherent story and weren't of such horrible quality as to render them indistinguishable from each other because they were entirely blacked out. Story that is almost totally redacted and mostly consists of black lines with a couple indefinite articles sprinkled about. Story that consists of every cuss word used throughout human history in order of appearance in published literature. Story is written in poor quality cuneiform on wet toilet paper. Story is written in literal chicken scratch. Story consists of nothing but web addresses, each of which plays an audio file of exactly one word in a 5-million-word epic centered around one man's stream-of-consciousness quest to come up with the most original story ever while simultaneously taking a shit.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 25, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> But isn’t that pretty stupid?
> 
> I mean, what kind of friggin mouth breather gets “disoriented” by a story that is written clearly and coherently and with high narrative competence because “oh sorry it’s not recognizably a genre I am comfortable with”?
> 
> ...



I think something that's "written clearly and coherently and with high narrative competence" will not likely be super-original in the way I'm thinking of it. I think the conventions of narrative storytelling are not original, but they're generally important for "narrative competence". I'm not talking about an original _setting_ for example - that's great. But if the setting takes originality too far, the writer may have to spend valuable story real estate trying to explain all the different features, or may choose not to explain, thus leaving readers bewildered. Or an author may think it's original to have a character who randomly kills every fourth person encountered, with no explanation ever offered, and this might be interesting enough to carry a reader through a short story, but would probably get pretty wearying in a full novel.

The Ancillary Justice series by Ann Leckie was, for me, a story that skated right on the edge of being "too original" because it was told from the POV of a species that doesn't recognize gender and therefore uses the female pronouns for everyone, including male humans, and it was a really interesting, original idea, and I ended up really liking the story, but there was also some non-linear storytelling and overall I sure didn't want any _more_ originality in there. But the rest of the story had some familiar scifi tropes (an evil empire, etc.) and I think that was a good idea on the author's part.

Maybe I'm a mouth-breather because I don't want stories to be original to the point of incomprehension, but I don't think so. Really, I think we agree that a good story should be "written clearly and coherently and with high narrative competence", we may just disagree about what it means to be original.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 25, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> I don't know about that, lucky. It seemed like Bayview meant "TOO original" the same way I meant "bad"
> 
> TOO original.... hmm...
> 
> Written in a completely new type of Wingdings but marketed as English. Every chapter is a nonsensical anagram of the previous chapters. Entire book is written in invisible ink and fourteen layers of code. Story is written in hexadecimal, has no setting, has no characters, has no plot, has no words, has no letters, has no punctuation. The ink has been blurred by "tears" of the writer to such an extent that no one can make anything meaningful out of it. Story was written by a cat climbing over the keyboard over all seventeen years of its life. Story is implied via pasted together images---which could possibly work if the images themselves made for a coherent story and weren't of such horrible quality as to render them indistinguishable from each other because they were entirely blacked out. Story that is almost totally redacted and mostly consists of black lines with a couple indefinite articles sprinkled about. Story that consists of every cuss word used throughout human history in order of appearance in published literature. Story is written in poor quality cuneiform on wet toilet paper. Story is written in literal chicken scratch. Story consists of nothing but web addresses, each of which plays an audio file of exactly one word in a 5-million-word epic centered around one man's stream-of-consciousness quest to come up with the most original story ever while simultaneously taking a shit.



none of the above would be labeled competent for obv reasons. And even if it was, needless to say, it definitely isn’t what I am writing. To drag back to the point, I am referring to stories that I am told by beta readers and in a couple cases WF members are extremely good but are not being picked up. I am trying to understand that disparity.


----------



## Grizzly (Jul 25, 2019)

Hey, I love this question. It's such a good one. 

One of my CW professors told me, "Samuel Beckett would never be published today." The writing is too eclectic. It's all over the place. Plot has gone out the window. Etc Etc

Which is to say — so much upon publishing depends on the era you're writing in! your audience, and not just the readers, but the people you're trying to publish with and their social media image, etc, etc, context is everything and not just in writing. 

I sort of disagree with @Bayview but only because I really love writing that is original to the point of incomprehensibility. That shit really gets me off, but I get that's a personal preference and there's not many weirdos like me who are down for a gig like that. 

Which leads me to my next important proposition — Y'ALL PATREON IS A THING. Weirdos who like the incomprehensible mumbo jumbo like myself can DIRECTLY SUPPORT ARTISTS AND WRITERS THAT ARE DOING THIS. Same goes for people that like only slightly incomprehensible things. Etc Etc

We live in an era where we can support really wacky and original works to be produced; we can support artists directly with crowdfunding tools (gofundme) and sites like bandcamp. *NOTHING IS TOO "ORIGINAL" TO BE PUBLISHED // everything that's "good" can and should be published*! we can do it!  it feels so fucking good to be supporting artists directly, and they feel freer too.

I listened to Amanda Palmer give a talk at SXSW about how being a fully funded Patreon artist has changed her art and her life. She can write 15 minute long songs about abortion and miscarriage and leaving her baby in the car. Beautiful songs that would never have gotten approved if she still had to deal with justifying her art to a big label company board or directors. Direct funding (via patreon) has given her artistic autonomy and us quality content. it's a win-win, and big corporations don't get supported in the process. it's a win-win-win. 

So yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that there was a time where if you wanted to be a writer, you had to submit your manuscript to a bunch of big publishing companies and they'd decide what was okay and what was too "original" to be published, even if it was good, _but we don't live in that time anymore_. We do live in the time where there's a bunch of crap circulating the world (both digital and print) because publication is so easy, that's true. But we also live in a time where artists can be liberated and free to produce what their souls are asking them to, and we're able to support them directly thanks to technology. It's a fucking renaissance y'all. WE'RE FUCKING DOING IT!!!!


p.s. pardon my cursing, i'm just stoked


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 25, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I think something that's "written clearly and coherently and with high narrative competence" will not likely be super-original in the way I'm thinking of it. I think the conventions of narrative storytelling are not original, but they're generally important for "narrative competence". I'm not talking about an original _setting_ for example - that's great. But if the setting takes originality too far, the writer may have to spend valuable story real estate trying to explain all the different features, or may choose not to explain, thus leaving readers bewildered. Or an author may think it's original to have a character who randomly kills every fourth person encountered, with no explanation ever offered, and this might be interesting enough to carry a reader through a short story, but would probably get pretty wearying in a full novel.
> 
> The Ancillary Justice series by Ann Leckie was, for me, a story that skated right on the edge of being "too original" because it was told from the POV of a species that doesn't recognize gender and therefore uses the female pronouns for everyone, including male humans, and it was a really interesting, original idea, and I ended up really liking the story, but there was also some non-linear storytelling and overall I sure didn't want any _more_ originality in there. But the rest of the story had some familiar scifi tropes (an evil empire, etc.) and I think that was a good idea on the author's part.
> 
> Maybe I'm a mouth-breather because I don't want stories to be original to the point of incomprehension, but I don't think so. Really, I think we agree that a good story should be "written clearly and coherently and with high narrative competence", we may just disagree about what it means to be original.



Not sure if you didn’t read or catch the full drift of my original posting but it wasn’t in reference to work along the lines of what you are describing or honestly that close. 

As such it seems kind of a straw man to talk about unusual pronouns etc. I provided an example of a piece as I anticipated confusion. Your point may well be accurate if I was talking extremes or stories in invisible ink but...Im not. My style is fairly conservative. My content is not untraditional. It’s just not always traditional in terms of genre tropes. I would like to understand why it is not compatible. 

And, again, just FTR, none of the compliments regarding these stories are coming from me. I don’t honestly ever think my work is particularly good and even if I do I don’t see that as important. But I’m either not buying or not cheerful about arguments that “genre exists and it’s important because without it a lot of readers would not feel comfortable with the work.” That makes no sense and flies in the face of much of literary history, and art history more broadly IMO.


----------



## Grizzly (Jul 25, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> I don't know about that, lucky. It seemed like Bayview meant "TOO original" the same way I meant "bad"
> 
> TOO original.... hmm...
> 
> Written in a completely new type of Wingdings but marketed as English. Every chapter is a nonsensical anagram of the previous chapters. Entire book is written in invisible ink and fourteen layers of code. Story is written in hexadecimal, has no setting, has no characters, has no plot, has no words, has no letters, has no punctuation. The ink has been blurred by "tears" of the writer to such an extent that no one can make anything meaningful out of it. Story was written by a cat climbing over the keyboard over all seventeen years of its life. Story is implied via pasted together images---which could possibly work if the images themselves made for a coherent story and weren't of such horrible quality as to render them indistinguishable from each other because they were entirely blacked out. Story that is almost totally redacted and mostly consists of black lines with a couple indefinite articles sprinkled about. Story that consists of every cuss word used throughout human history in order of appearance in published literature. Story is written in poor quality cuneiform on wet toilet paper. Story is written in literal chicken scratch. Story consists of nothing but web addresses, each of which plays an audio file of exactly one word in a 5-million-word epic centered around one man's stream-of-consciousness quest to come up with the most original story ever while simultaneously taking a shit.




I LOVE THIS and would eat it right up. please. where can i read things like this?!?!?!?! I get why it's not for everyone, but there _is,_ an audience for wacky things like this, probably more so in the interactive fiction/game community, but this needs to happen more. I think it's so cool and so rad and should have the opportunity to be published, even if not by big publishing companies who would never take the risk. 

Just because a company doesn't back it means it doesn't deserve to be out there, as a piece of art? Bullshit. 






luckyscars said:


> none of the above would be labeled competent for obv reasons. And even if it was, needless to say, it definitely isn’t what I am writing. To drag back to the point, I am referring to stories that I am told by beta readers and in a couple cases WF members are extremely good but are not being picked up. I am trying to understand that disparity.




I hate to be a broken record, but I'll say it again — we don't have to be constrained by what publishing companies will and won't "pick up". You wrote something good and that you're proud of? Crowdfund. Start local and small. Get involved with local writing communities and start a gofundme and/or a Patreon and PRINT THAT SHIT. Distribute in the little free libraries around town, the coffee shops, etc etc ... You don't have to change your art to fit some sale model for some big publishing company. We live in a time where we can bypass the middle man and support each other to do the work that we want to do, no matter how wacky (or not wacky) it is. HALLELUJAH


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 25, 2019)

Grizzly said:


> I hate to be a broken record, but I'll say it again — we don't have to be constrained by what publishing companies will and won't "pick up". You wrote something good and that you're proud of? Crowdfund. Start local and small. Get involved with local writing communities and start a gofundme and/or a Patreon and PRINT THAT SHIT. Distribute in the little free libraries around town, the coffee shops, etc etc ... You don't have to change your art to fit some sale model for some big publishing company. We live in a time where we can bypass the middle man and support each other to do the work that we want to do, no matter how wacky (or not wacky) it is



I love your enthusiasm however, speaking just personally, I hate self-publishing.


----------



## Grizzly (Jul 25, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I love your enthusiasm however, speaking just personally, I hate self-publishing.



I feel you. There was a time where I felt the same way, and I still feel hesitation around self-published works. 

But it's not self-publication if you have your community backing you. Your beta readers, friends and family, even us here online. We got you. Start a gofundme or a Patreon and see who rises to support you. Even if a big label company isn't down, a lot of people are. When I look at it this way, I don't see it as a "self-published work" that has gone without editing/critique/etc and therefore lowkey low-quality, but a crowdfunded, community-built piece of art that not only is amazing in and of itself (you've got a whole crew working together to make it the best it could be), it's also building community and autonomy and reminding everyone that we don't have to live by and _create by_ some company's standards. 

Our art isn't for them. It's for us. 

Crowdfunding (rather than "self publishing") is a way to do this, to reclaim art as our own. By humans for humans. Cut all that "iT nEeDs To ApPeAl To A gEnRe" bullshit.


What I mean to say is this: I totally get the stigma against self-publishing, but what I'm suggesting isn't that. You don't just go and publish whatever willy-nilly with no regards for feedback or quality control. But who is administering the feedback/quality control is NOT some big corporation, but rather YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITY. of friends and writers and whoever else. 

It's still rigorous and edited and sussed out to be its very best, but the terms aren't to meet some genre that the company needs to meet a quota in, it's instead looked at by your close compadres who really get what you're trying to do, and who are really invested in what you're doing. It's not self-publishing, it's communal collaboration. 

All soul, baby.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 25, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> none of the above would be labeled competent for obv reasons. And even if it was, needless to say, it definitely isn’t what I am writing. To drag back to the point, I am referring to stories that I am told by beta readers and in a couple cases WF members are extremely good but are not being picked up. I am trying to understand that disparity.



I never said any of that applied to what you were writing. Bayview and I merely came to the conclusion that "Too original = limited audience". Nothing's impossible to find an audience for. "Good writing" and "bad writing" are subjective things, just like "Too original" and "too formulaic/generic". This is up to the publisher, writer and audience to decide subjectively. 

I'll add that the more genre tags you stick on something, the more niche the market for it. Think of genre tags and themes and tones like nails in a story's shirt. The more descriptors your story's got, the less freedom of movement it's going to enjoy, and the less likely it's going to be a good fit for the certain markets which may or may not overlap any of your story's current real estate on the Genre Market Wall. Simply put, you've pegged it down too firmly and haven't found the right market yet. Whoopdeedoo. Self-publish, be happy with it for it, or keep hunting for that specific market and editor who can totally make that story work for their readers/medium/magazine/etc. 

There is no objective good or bad. There is no objective original or unoriginal. There is no objective publishable or not publishable. There is no objective competent or incompetent. Because every last one of these qualities is subjective.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 25, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> I never said any of that applied to what you were writing. Bayview and I merely came to the conclusion that "Too original = limited audience". Nothing's impossible to find an audience for. "Good writing" and "bad writing" are subjective things, just like "Too original" and "too formulaic/generic". This is up to the publisher, writer and audience to decide subjectively.
> 
> I'll add that the more genre tags you stick on something, the more niche the market for it. Think of genre tags and themes and tones like nails in a story's shirt. The more descriptors your story's got, the less freedom of movement it's going to enjoy, and the less likely it's going to be a good fit for the certain markets which may or may not overlap any of your story's current real estate on the Genre Market Wall. Simply put, you've pegged it down too firmly and haven't found the right market yet. Whoopdeedoo. Self-publish, be happy with it for it, or keep hunting for that specific market and editor who can totally make that story work for their readers/medium/magazine/etc.
> 
> There is no objective good or bad. There is no objective original or unoriginal. There is no objective publishable or not publishable. There is no objective competent or incompetent. Because every last one of these qualities is subjective.



Ah okay, see I sort of thought you were referring to my work or something potentially relevant to it given I started this thread, and especially when you prefaced your post with the stuff about Wingdings and whatever with my name...I guess if you’re just speaking generally yes extreme originality is not always a good thing - Dunno who is arguing that it is, though?

I don’t know if you saw the part where I mentioned I had approached over 100 publishers with those stories when I retired them. That’s mainly why I’m not convinced by the “you just haven’t found the right place” thing. I would like to go the easy route and just say I’m not good enough a writer for commercial return however that is strange as I have now sold seven stories this year. All of them were verrrry trope-heavy while my not so trope heavy stuff goes untaken. And hence, this post! 

So, do you have a view on why this might be? Cuz I’m not so into the semantic debate over “too original”.

Also (and honestly I’m not excited to debate it) but I have to say I strongly disagree with the “there’s no such thing as good or bad because everything is subjective” thing. I mean yes it’s correct if you want to get really technical, but in the real world I’m pretty sure these matters are dealt with by consensus and it’s plain disingenuous to act like there’s no such thing as a publishable standard. There friggin is & I am encountering it daily myself. Trust me when I say that the limerick I wrote when I was fourteen entitled “Ode To Harry’s Mom’s Hemorrhoids” was objectively not as good nor as publishable as even the most mediocre of Shakespearean sonnets. There are standards and they are, in any practical sense, objective.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 25, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Ah okay, see I sort of thought you were referring to my work or something potentially relevant to it given I started this thread, and especially when you prefaced your post with the stuff about Wingdings and whatever with my name...I guess if you’re just speaking generally yes extreme originality is not always a good thing - Dunno who is arguing that it is, though?
> 
> I don’t know if you saw the part where I mentioned I had approached over 100 publishers with those stories when I retired them. That’s mainly why I’m not convinced by the “you just haven’t found the right place” thing. I would like to go the easy route and just say I’m not good enough a writer for commercial return however that is strange as I have now sold seven stories this year. All of them were verrrry trope-heavy while my not so trope heavy stuff goes untaken. And hence, this post!
> 
> ...



It's always good to start with the technical, bare bones concepts because a lot of the arguments seem to be over them. 


We've all seen things published that we would have never published. There is all kinds of awful stuff out there--even awful stuff that's sold by traditional publishers. I did mention some Hall of Fame  bad things I've seen in published writing earlier. 

You know it's good. You just haven't found the right market for it. That market might be Patreon, might be self-pubbing.  I've been around longer than a lot of markets--and I'm not even that old. Publishers come and go; editors come and go; the tastes and expectations of a given readership/editor/publisher change over time. The ideal market for your work might not even exist yet. Maybe it's already passed away. It doesn't do a whole lot of good, in either case. You've subbed it everywhere you care to, so if you're sick of it, you can self-publish, you can shelve it and wait for the winds of change to improve its chances, or you can collect like pieces and publish them as grouping of such stories (like King did with his novellas and shorts--many of which I like a lot).

I told you in the first post I made here that I'm in a similar boat. We write some true blue genre benders. We like our deeper themes. Unlike me, you can write genre fiction that sells at all. I can't seem to stop making shit too deep/complicated/dark/whatever for publishers. I gave up subbing very shortly after starting--postage was too high for me at the time and there weren't many online submissions available, life got in the way, and I kept up with longer fiction instead. Then life got in the way again, and I'm only now kinda getting back into it--both writing and thinking about subbing. 

I'm still going to disagree about subjective/objective standards, because it's all about the viewer in question. I guarantee that your limerick would be far preferred to the Captain Underpants readers than anything Shakespeare put out. You've just got to find the right audience. Even if someone  thinks your limerick's bad 99.999% of the time, you might just catch them on that off day when they need a good laugh and plain English. Even smart, serious people sometimes need something stupid, short, plain and/or funny to read. It's not objective--even if it's not to your tastes (ever).


----------



## Bayview (Jul 26, 2019)

Obviously I was talking in generalities--how could I ever make a specific comment on a piece I've never read?

If this thread is supposed to be limited to just "why hasn't Luckyscars sold a particular piece of writing", I'm out. Too many possible answers, and too little interest on my part.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

Bayview said:


> Obviously I was talking in generalities--how could I ever make a specific comment on a piece I've never read?
> 
> If this thread is supposed to be limited to just "why hasn't Luckyscars sold a particular piece of writing", I'm out. Too many possible answers, and too little interest on my part.



It’s not, and I never said it was, it’s just that you were clearly responding to me in that particular post and then went on a tangent of work that is “too original”.

This I understand and agree with, however in my case (and I will assume in a lot of people’s cases) it isn’t an issue of work being wildly original - seriously, I’m not that talented! - but simply not being obvious horror/science fiction/whatever due to lack of tropes, mainly.

I was looking for insight as to why a publisher would turn down good stories that are definitely a part of [genre] in terms of theme but conversely lack the typical props or plot devices if that genre, that aren’t super “Genre-y”. Nothing to do with being too weird. Hope that clears it up.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I was looking for insight as to why a publisher would turn down good stories that are definitely a part of [genre] in terms of theme but conversely lack the typical props or plot devices if that genre, that aren’t super “Genre-y”. Nothing to do with being too weird. Hope that clears it up.




Because they don't want them. That why said publisher/editor isn't picking them up. At the very moment that your nifty story came down the pipe, they didn't want it. They might've already story too similar to it in that issue. They might've been closed to submissions by the time yours got through the slush pile. They might not have the money to pay you what yours is worth at the moment (maybe they spent too much on different stories or hiring new people). They might have too many of that word length. Your story might not be original for some markets, and be too original for others. The readership might not be a good fit for that story. They might be inundated with submissions. There are a million varied, valid reasons why even a good story gets passed up. I've worked in publishing before, and yeah, we did pass up on "good" stories because they weren't a good fit at the moment. A different month, a different slush pile reader, and your story might've well gotten published.

You can have all the tropes and still get passed up. You can have few or none of them and get passed up. There isn't a sweet spot because there are too many variables in the equation. It's up to the publisher to determine if your story is genre-y enough for them (or a good fit at that very moment). Some genres are more defined by trope than by theme. 

For instance, if the theme is that a fear of the unknown is healthy, you can set it in pretty much any genre. Any flavor of horror fits this, but so can sci-fi, fantasy, thrillers, mysteries, coming of age stories, even romances. 

There are tropes that define genres. Elves are fantasy. Spaceships are sci-fi. Romance has people gazing into each other's eyes all day and smooching. Horror is strange and/or frightening. Comedy is supposed to be funny. But if you wrap 'em all into a giant, crazy burrito, what genre is it now? It's Hilarious Elves Scared Shitless and Smooching in Space (Space! Space!). It's now been nailed to the genre wall in too many weird places to be a good fit for most publishers.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Because they don't want them. That why said publisher/editor isn't picking them up. At the very moment that your nifty story came down the pipe, they didn't want it. They might've already story too similar to it in that issue. They might've been closed to submissions by the time yours got through the slush pile. They might not have the money to pay you what yours is worth at the moment (maybe they spent too much on different stories or hiring new people). They might have too many of that word length. Your story might not be original for some markets, and be too original for others. The readership might not be a good fit for that story. They might be inundated with submissions. There are a million varied, valid reasons why even a good story gets passed up. I've worked in publishing before, and yeah, we did pass up on "good" stories because they weren't a good fit at the moment. A different month, a different slush pile reader, and your story might've well gotten published.
> 
> You can have all the tropes and still get passed up. You can have few or none of them and get passed up. There isn't a sweet spot because there are too many variables in the equation. It's up to the publisher to determine if your story is genre-y enough for them (or a good fit at that very moment). Some genres are more defined by trope than by theme.
> 
> ...



Cool, so assuming you are right, then as I mentioned before do you agree that not publishing something because of genre “rules” is a inherently stupid/badly motivated concept, serving of no good purpose other than I guess to market shit to lazy readers? 

Because if the sole argument for not publishing these stories is “because they don’t want them” I’m not sure there’s anything I can do about it besides ensuring I deliberately dumb down my work - as that seems to be what I am selling.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> But isn’t that pretty stupid?
> 
> I mean, what kind of friggin mouth breather gets “disoriented” by a story that is written clearly and coherently and with high narrative competence because “oh sorry it’s not recognizably a genre I am comfortable with”?
> 
> ...




I'd like to point to this post as exhibit #1, your Honor. :lol:
This post showed passion, it presented you in a different light.
It was also a fresh contrast to your usual posts, which are technically well assembled...but often too lengthy.
Based on your writing I have seen, it almost seems like you are writing too hard, which suppresses the passion.
You clearly have the technical skills; now it's time to let the passion shine thru.


PS: You mentioned an upcoming release. Shoot me a link and I'll be sure to post a nice review on release day.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Cool, so assuming you are right, then as I mentioned before do you agree that not publishing something because of genre “rules” is a inherently stupid/badly motivated concept, serving of no good purpose other than I guess to market shit to lazy readers?
> 
> Because if the sole argument for not publishing these stories is “because they don’t want them” I’m not sure there’s anything I can do about it besides ensuring I deliberately dumb down my work - as that seems to be what I am selling.


Not entirely following that first sentence.

Good stories don't have to follow genres at all. At some point, somebody had to be the first in their genre, when you think about it. You don't have to dumb down your stories for anybody. I sure as hell ain't. I'd rather not get published and make my way at the day job than dumb my stories down. I've tried writing strict genre-y before, and I just can't seem to do it. Something else always creeps in there. Pinocchio was supposed to be mindless, horrible erotica, serialized for a quick buck, and it's now shaping up to be that magum opus on identity, reality, the nature of abuse. 

So sell your genre fiction. Bide your time. Send this fancy story out to new markets and publishers. Don't be afraid to sub it at more literary as opposed to strictly genre publications. Get your name out there, and eventually, you'll sub it to the right place at the right time. A bigger name in fiction will make the publisher more likely to take a gamble on your fancier works. Alternatively, you can self-pub it or package it with an anthology/collection of other shorter works. Deeper, meaningful works will always have an audience because they say something important that rings true in human hearts--but not everyone wants to be confronted with deeper themes. I know the stuff I've written can make people damnably uncomfortable, and I'm not going to blame someone for not reading/finishing/publishing these stories. It doesn't make the stories bad--it just makes them "not a good fit at the moment". 

Sometimes, a shitty limerick is a far more welcome a read than Shakespeare. That doesn't make Shakespeare a bad  writer anymore than the sophomoric limerick makes you a bad writer. If someone's in the mood for that serious, gripping piece, they'll want it badly because they want to be rocked from the banality of life, experience a deeper connection with the text, maybe get a new perspective on something. But if that person's wanting mindless pulp and a crude joke, giving them what they wants pays off, too. There's nothing wrong with either piece--it's just about timing, luck of the draw, knowing the audience and editor. 

I'm fine with genres existing. I'm fine with publishers putting whatever sells out there. I'm fine with pulp and camp and tropes--I just can't write them any more. I've never been able to do that, but I've only gotten worse about it as I've matured as a writer.  

A lot of genre-specific magazines are pretty hard set on their tropes. They've got a defined audience that wants something specific. Throwing drama at their comedy won't get it published--even if it's the best damn drama they've ever read, even if it brings tears to their eyes and makes 'em call their mommas. Even if your drama fits all the genre tropes--it's got elves or spaceships or whatever--that publisher might just be in the mood for comedy. You can't know these things before you get the rejection letter though, so it's best not to think about it too much. 

The daily grind wears on everyone, and hence, there will always be a market for tragedies and comedies of any genre. Life can be dull, monotonous, boring, unfulfilling, frustrating, lackluster. Comedies and tragedies are the answers to this. Comedy will perk the person up out of depression and boredom and give them some hope, maybe. Tragedy, however, is all that deep stuff. It hits people in the feels, makes them think, gets them to reevaluate their lives and vicariously _feel something that matters_. People are usually in the mood more for comedy and other "entertainment value" genres (it's more escapist)--but it's the tragedies that win the awards. They have sticking power because of the intense emotions they arouse. But, just because they're good doesn't mean people will see them, doesn't mean people will ever watch them more than once.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 26, 2019)

Stories get accepted and rejected for a variety of reasons, not all of which are within the author's control, or relate to the "quality" of the story or writing.

https://onspecmag.wordpress.com/why-stories-get-rejected-even-good-ones/

This one is older, but terrific, and written by a writing and publishing icon:

https://www.mzbworks.com/why.htm


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 26, 2019)

I personally am trying to come up with a new genre to fit my story. Medieval Western, that's my story in a nutshell.The main character is a knight errant on a quest from God to stop evil in the world.

 Sounds rather generic until you open the book and find out it's set in an alternate history universe were the year 1346 is there 2020. There tech level is all over the place, guns are just now becoming advanced enough to contend with magic, all myths are true to an extent and all the great western tropes are on full display in medieval europe while a zombie plague is sweeping through the world at large.

 Now what genre would you put that in? One, two, quite a few? I just made up my own to better fit my tastes and my story because for me it's a plain and simple medieval western.

Oh and Atlantis will be a thing thus adding some sci-fi bits later on.

Now does make me a good writer if I can pull this off? I would say yes cause this is one huge undertaking for little old me plus its condencing ten plus years of research down into a coherant story. Does it make me publishable? That is entirely up to whomever I send my story to. Are they going to take a risk on some new age writer from nowhere AZ or are they going to go for the tried and true easily defined stories that fill there slosh pile. 9 time's out of 10 they'll pick the slosh.


----------



## Cephus (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I was looking for insight as to why a publisher would turn down good stories that are definitely a part of [genre] in terms of theme but conversely lack the typical props or plot devices if that genre, that aren’t super “Genre-y”. Nothing to do with being too weird. Hope that clears it up.



Because publishers exist to sell books and they've done extensive market research to understand what sells well and why. If your book doesn't have the characteristics they think it takes to sell well, why would they buy it?


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

Cephus said:


> Because publishers exist to sell books and they've done extensive market research to understand what sells well and why. If your book doesn't have the characteristics they think it takes to sell well, why would they buy it?



I explained why in the first post and multiple after it  - because it’s a good story and lots of people think so. Also I’m talking short stories, not books.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

Terry D said:


> Stories get accepted and rejected for a variety of reasons, not all of which are within the author's control, or relate to the "quality" of the story or writing.
> 
> https://onspecmag.wordpress.com/why-stories-get-rejected-even-good-ones/
> 
> ...



I totally get that. 

As I have said, my question is why the opinions of publishers don’t always align with readers. How even within a given genre, let’s say horror, a good horror story can be enjoyed by a good number of horror fans but nonetheless go unsold after 100+ Submissions to horror publishers, many of whom specifically claim to want “original voices” or whatever. 

I am not saying this is definitely style over substance or that such publishers might be lazy or cynical or both...but it strikes me as a little coincidental that the more tropes and cliches I employ in these stories the more acceptances I am getting...


----------



## Terry D (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I totally get that.
> 
> As I have said, my question is why the opinions of publishers don’t always align with readers. How even within a given genre, let’s say horror, a good horror story can be enjoyed by a good number of horror fans but nonetheless go unsold after 100+ Submissions to horror publishers, many of whom specifically claim to want “original voices” or whatever.
> 
> I am not saying this is definitely style over substance or that such publishers might be lazy or cynical or both...but it strikes me as a little coincidental that the more tropes and cliches I employ in these stories the more acceptances I am getting...



Your sample size of readers who like your story is much smaller than the readership of the magazines you are submitting to. A publication won't stay in business if it doesn't print what its readers like. So, if your story is being rejected, the editors must feel that it isn't what _their_ readers want, or like. It missed the mark in some way. Particularly if it has been rejected more than 100 times. Are those 100+ editors a larger or smaller sample size than your readers who have given positive feedback? There are things genre readers come to expect, even demand, from stories within their chosen genre. Call them tropes and cliches if you want to, but editors might call them expectations. If work doesn't fit the expectations of a magazine's target audience it doesn't get published. The worth, value, quality, whatever, of a story is like the value of a collectible coin; it is worth exactly as much as a buyer is willing to pay for it. That doesn't mean a story isn't well written, or creative, it just means it isn't _right_.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

Terry D said:


> Your sample size of readers who like your story is much smaller than the readership of the magazines you are submitting to. A publication won't stay in business if it doesn't print what its readers like. So, if your story is being rejected, the editors must feel that it isn't what _their_ readers want, or like. It missed the mark in some way. Particularly if it has been rejected more than 100 times. Are those 100+ editors a larger or smaller sample size than your readers who have given positive feedback? There are things genre readers come to expect, even demand, from stories within their chosen genre. Call them tropes and cliches if you want to, but editors might call them expectations. If work doesn't fit the expectations of a magazine's target audience it doesn't get published. The worth, value, quality, whatever, of a story is like the value of a collectible coin; it is worth exactly as much as a buyer is willing to pay for it. That doesn't mean a story isn't well written, or creative, it just means it isn't _right_.



 I get that too. 

But the salient point (and the only reason I really care about this) is that if publishing decisions are driven by “expectations” that lead to people like me writing to a template or formula because it works...then that doesn’t actually seem like a good way to get the best work out, right?

In true writing forums fashion, let’s do an analogy! Food - Imagine that everybody in the world loves steak. Imagine it’s ninety-nine percent of dishes and always has been. Now imagine chicken is discovered. But, shit! All the grocery stores say no, their buyers want steak, expect steak, chicken is too weird, they worry. It won’t fit. 

Now that’s a reasonable position. It’s also a tragically lame one. Do you really want to live in a word without fried chicken? And, just to be clear, I realize that there isn’t actually much anybody individually can do to change what’s in the grocery store. I accept everything. All I am asking for is an explanation, if possible, of why grocery stores (aka publishers) are so afraid to take on different kinds of meat when clearly if we look at it historically, originality in product, assuming the quality is there, does sell.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I get that too.
> 
> But the salient point (and the only reason I really care about this) is that if publishing decisions are driven by “expectations” that lead to people like me writing to a template or formula because it works...then that doesn’t actually seem like a good way to get the best work out, right?
> 
> ...



Then you make a killing marketing chicken. 

Self-pub. Start your own magazine. Advertise everywhere.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Then you make a killing marketing chicken.
> 
> Self-pub. Start your own magazine. Advertise everywhere.



Too busy writing ghost erotica.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Too busy writing ghost erotica.



Ghostwriting erotica, paranormal ghost erotica, or erotica designed for ghosts? 

:-k


----------



## Terry D (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I get that too.
> 
> But the salient point (and the only reason I really care about this) is that if publishing decisions are driven by “expectations” that lead to people like me writing to a template or formula because it works...then that doesn’t actually seem like a good way to get the best work out, right?
> 
> ...



It's not that black and white. Considering the expectations of readers within a genre isn't the same thing as writing to a formula. What good genre writing does is take the tropes of the genre and look at them from a new perspective, or twist them in unique ways.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Too busy writing ghost erotica.



It's been done. See: _The Entity_, by Frank D. Fellita


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

Terry D said:


> It's not that black and white. Considering the expectations of readers within a genre isn't the same thing as writing to a formula. What good genre writing does is take the tropes of the genre and look at them from a new perspective, or twist them in unique ways.



I feel like “Take a genre, consider its tropes and tendencies, pick one or more, subvert them” is arguably a formula in itself. 

Certainly I have to admit it felt like a formula when I was doing it and it got the work over the line.

“Formulaic” isn’t necessarily meant as a pejorative or an indictment of workmanship, more an omen of highly derivative content.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

Terry D said:


> It's been done. See: _The Entity_, by Frank D. Fellita



My personal favorite is “Night of the Naked Phantom” by Misty P. Ness.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> My personal favorite is “Night of the Naked Phantom” by Misty P. Ness.


 
There is no way that's a real book. If it is then I have to get my hands on it just so i can bug my parents with it!


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> My personal favorite is “Night of the Naked Phantom” by Misty P. Ness.




Aww man, we don't wanna get into this. Raises way too many questions about how ghosts would go about gettin' jiggy with it. Also makes me wonder about which paranormal entities would actually be better between the sheets. 

Would think ghosts would be kinda like having naughty dreams. I mean, they'd be great while they last, I guess, but... a little _unfulfilling_...

I wrote a horror story that had revolved around two shadows in love, but they're not a species that "does it" so much as they just meld together and touch consciousnesses, which would be a higher realm of intimacy but less physically pleasurable because shadows had very little by way of physical senses. 

So far, my best bet are the empaths. I've written three of them so far (empathy worked differently in all three), and let's say they've got a lot of potential.


----------

