Get your spec up front

Posted by: @axeminister

I literally stuck that line in there to wave the spec flag, then moved on with the story.

Is that a cheat?

Let's take it out of the realm of "cheating" —as if there are rules you're trying to circumvent and might do so illicitly— and ask, instead: is this good writing? 

I can't see that it is if the story unfolds as you describe. Saying what's not there, I think, doesn't constitute world building but looks a lot more like some kinda "don't show, don't tell." 

I'm not a big fan of the formulaic approach, but realistically, the contest, as a market, has stated again and again the  formula it prefers, so I get that you need to get that spec in early.

If I may: You could set this scene a little more thoroughly in any case.
In today's world there might be "a cop throwing down flares, directing traffic around the scene" whereas in the future there might be "a cop, tossing signal drones into the air. They deploy around the wreck, flashing drive-around arrows at incoming drivers. Anything gets too close, they Wooo, an angry signal, establishing the perimeter" 

Just 2¢!

For me, personally, I actually like the fact that there's a human police officer instead of an AI drone. That does a lot of heavy lifting for a little detail--firstly, you are told that the world features a class of AI capable of independently and, presumably, effectively responding to an accident. And secondly, it's implied that there is something out of the ordinary here, since the drone is replaced by an actual human officer. That gives me a question hook for the story, which the standard utility drones don't. And even if it wasn't a part of the story flesh originally, you get a lot more to work with there, if you want to play with it.

Both approaches work, though, in terms of setting the spec up front, and I think the distinction between which is better likely comes down to taste, and also down to how you execute what comes later. (I'm a little biased, as I've read the story Dustin is referring to, and I think his approach worked for it. And as it earned a SF, it's safe to say I'm in good company there.)

But regardless of specific style preferences, having that spec detail there at all is the more important detail, if you're looking specifically at what might help a story get it from the R bracket. The contest unfortunately receives a lot of junk that doesn't meet the guidelines, and they have thousands of entries to come through. So just making sure that your story clearly meets the contest guidelines is a sensible approach to take.

Posted by: @axeminister

Get that spec up front!

Seriously, the earlier the better. Signal the first reader (Kary, in this case) that this is a speculative story and she should keep reading, then pass it along to Jody.

Very important point here. I haven't received an abundance of personal rejections, but one did mention they felt the spec element came too late in the story. So getting the spec element right up front is really crucial.

Same here. I got a "spec up front" comment. I had a hard time thinking of a way to do it. But I love the easy way you slid it in, Dustin.
<mind spins on possibilities>

I cheated. Blatantly. I needed pages to establish the setting—a 19th century clipper ship in the Indian Ocean, late at night after a storm—before the speculative element appeared. It had to be there.

So I added a paragraph right up front…

————

If the storm had lasted another hour, perhaps even half that, I might never have seen the new star. And then
what happened to me and the Prospero might have happened to another man
on another vessel – or perhaps to no one at all.

Posted by: @martin-l-shoemaker

I cheated. Blatantly. I needed pages to establish the setting—a 19th century clipper ship in the Indian Ocean, late at night after a storm—before the speculative element appeared. It had to be there.

So I added a paragraph right up front…

Is it even possible to "cheat" on a story? Maybe you just used a tool in a way it wasn't intended for. I'm guilty of using butter knives when a screwdriver would work better. I say if it gets the job done, who cares how you got there!

Thanks for this thought provoking thread. It is interesting that one of the RWC categories has to do with speculative element being introduced too late. Apparently it needs to be within the first 2 pages (and can be a reason why it's SF and not F). Looking through the comments, it's worth working in to your opening paragraph as you set the stage so to speak. I think this is the reason why my Q1 story received a RWC. I wanted it to be a portal fantasy which makes getting to the speculative element quick enough tricky. Definitely food for thought.

One of my only Rs here was a magical realism story where the magical realism is quite late in the story - not a fit for this market - but it actually got held for consideration at another spec market. Maybe someday I'll revisit it and see if I can sneak some of the magical aspect a little earlier and try sending it to some different places.

Besides the fact that it is stated as a requirement, why can't the spec come late in the story, as long as it is there? If the reader is reading a Sci-Fi and Fantasy anthology, are they not smart enough to assume the story is one of those two without being told so in the first two pages?

Hypothesis 1: This is just a process requirement that makes first reading more efficient and enables the wonderful people here to sift thru thousands of entries a quarter to find the gems.

Hypothesis 2: This is good industry practice because some spec publications will stretch their spec criteria simply because they don't receive enough quality entries. Getting spec up front is good practice so those readers are not disappointed by slogging thru an entire story that never quite delivers.

Hypothesis 3: This is good industry practice because indie published stories by unknown authors need to let the reader know early they are not wasting there time on non-spec when that's what they want.

I agree with your thoughts Joe Benet. If every story has to follow the exact same formula, where does spontaneity fit in.

But if we want to win, we have to go with the flow, pun intended.  

Well, for one thing, we do know that the Contest receives entries that aren't spec at all--and even entries that aren't even stories. It's been mentioned as a rationale for this before. Expecting our fair reader to slog through those in the hopes that they might eventually be spec is probably optimistic. So Hypothesis 1 does carry weight, and I think certainly 2 and 3 have weight, though may not be key to this particular contest. 

But I think there's a Hypothesis 4 missing here, which is--the Market knows what its readers like to read, and what its judges or editors like to see, and the rules simply reflect that. There's a reason that David Farland previously spoke about the concept of speculative fiction being "wonder fiction" -- and if your spec is coming late in your story, rather than early, then chances are pretty good that you're not delivering on that.

(It's not guaranteed, by any stretch. But by the same token, there are always stories that win despite seeming to break rules--and this isn't about that, but more about the general case.)  

By and large, market rules really aren't just arbitrary things bolted onto a market by an editor trying to make your life difficult. More often than not, it comes from them knowing their publication--what they like to publish, and what their readers enjoy seeing, what stories their readers most often tell them stuck with them, or which stories were the ones that people remembered the most fondly, and so on and so forth. As a rule, I'd argue that the professional take on almost any rule put forward by just about any market is to accept that they have a reason why they want it to be there, and that if your story doesn't fit the rules they've presented, then just accept that it's probably not a story for their market.

Some may invite you to try anyway, but sometimes, these can help you know quickly that the story might do better somewhere else instead--and you may rather try them than waste your time on one that isn't really looking for your current masterwork.

For every horror market that wants gory nightmare monsters, there's one that wants existential cosmic dread, one that wants psychological horror rooted in realism, and one that wants dream-like horror narrative rooted in a more poetic style. And where some markets may want sword-and-sorcery tales with their barbarians swinging in from the first stanza, others would prefer their fantasy to creep in at the edges, subtly invading a realistic present-day setting to subvert expectations. They all know what they're looking for, and sometimes, what they're looking for just isn't the story you've written. That doesn't mean it isn't a good story--but it almost certainly means it's not a good fit for their particular market. And as a rule, it's a good idea to trust the market to know that.

Posted by: @joebenet

Besides the fact that it is stated as a requirement, why can't the spec come late in the story, as long as it is there? If the reader is reading a Sci-Fi and Fantasy anthology, are they not smart enough to assume the story is one of those two without being told so in the first two pages?

Hypothesis 1: This is just a process requirement that makes first reading more efficient and enables the wonderful people here to sift thru thousands of entries a quarter to find the gems.

Hypothesis 2: This is good industry practice because some spec publications will stretch their spec criteria simply because they don't receive enough quality entries. Getting spec up front is good practice so those readers are not disappointed by slogging thru an entire story that never quite delivers.

Hypothesis 3: This is good industry practice because indie published stories by unknown authors need to let the reader know early they are not wasting there time on non-spec when that's what they want.

I would agree with your first hypothesis, more or less.

One of the things that tripped me up when I first started submitting was modeling the structure of my writing on the works of authors that I enjoyed reading. A natural, almost inevitable approach, I’m sure. In my view, a typical story established scene and setting, defines the rules of normalcy, and then shatters or erodes that.

This is a sharp contrast with the advice here to throw the reader into the middle of the action and let them sort things out later. I propose there are three primary drivers of this disconnect.

1. Markets and reader expectations have evolved. Most works read by most people will trail the cutting edge. If you focus your literary development exclusively on the classics, you’re going to struggle in many modern markets. For all the high-minded ideals about art, it doesn’t matter how deep your thoughts are if nobody reads them.
2. The story the author writes and the story that the reader comes away with are different. I have reread things where I would have sworn that some point or other is belabored repeatedly, to find only spare reference which nonetheless managed to color the whole character/event/story.

   I don’t much enjoy reading flowery or detailed descriptions of things, and I would have pointed to one of my favorite authors as an example of how to write a lean story where the plot is all that matters. Rereading some of his work recently, I discovered that his prose is as purple as they come, it just doesn’t seep into my brain because it doesn’t interest me.

   Similarly, the author may well throw you into the action and fill in the pieces later. By the end, you have a good idea of how things were before the crisis, and the story rearranges itself in the proper order in your mind. That’s nice and satisfying as a reader, but a pernicious thing when you casually try your own hand at mimicking it without properly grokking how it was done.

3. Now, those who have read this far will be proud of me. In a post about getting the important thing up front, I have buried what passes for my point here towards the end. An established author’s most important hook is the name on the cover page. They can start the story anywhere they want and you trust that they will entertain or intrigue you.

   A new author doesn’t have that luxury. I think the WOTF guideline is not so much a requirement for a good story, but rather a prescription for an amateur writer. You have to throw your best stuff out as fast and hard as you can to keep the reader’s interest from sentence to sentence, because they lack the trust that there is something worthwhile buried deeper in. It’s not inherently better writing or storytelling, it’s proving to a skeptic that there’s a story worth reading.

It’s not just the first reader either, it’s also the end audience that the contest is selecting for. They have an effectively unlimited selection of things to read, and they don’t know you. Prove your writing is interesting by writing something interesting.

Surely there are ways to seize and hold the reader’s interest aside from the speculative component? Yes, and I expect that you could win if you do it well enough, but the speculative element should be central, in addition to appearing early, and should therefore be one of the most interesting parts of your story. Saving it for later makes your job harder. It’s already a tough hill, no point in handicapping yourself.

Young, idealistic editors quickly learn a sad truth: people don't read guidelines. They just scatter-shot submit.

The editors would love to give every story more time; but after 40 or 50 stories with no speculative element at all, you get cynical. If it's not up front, there's not enough time to spend looking for it.

Remember: thousands of stories per quarter. Thousands, plural, means at least 2,000. There's not time to read every one.