?

Log in

No account? Create an account

ccfinlay

Words of Wisdom, From Kelly Link

« previous entry | next entry »
Jun. 1st, 2006 | 07:27 pm

Most of you know that Kelly Link is one of the Resident Editors over at the Online Writing Workshop. This month she had a letter to members that she wrote for the newsletter. I thought it was important enough to repost here.

BEYOND COMPETENT AND ACCOMPLISHED: A CALL TO ACTION FOR WORKSHOPPERS

In the past few months, it seems to me that there is a great deal of competent work being posted to the Online Writing Workshop. This month there was a handful of stories that could have been Editor's Choices, and all of them are probably good enough, with minor revisions, to sell to some of the second- or third-tier markets. Some of you will sell -- or already have sold -- your work to _Asimov's_ or _F&SF_. This is one of the largest workshops that I've ever been a part of, and it works. I read the comments on stories, and, like any workshop, there is good advice and bad advice and just plain weird advice being given. Part of becoming a better writer is not only learning what to take away from good advice, but what to take away (or figure out) about bad advice or off-the-wall advice. The only kind of critique that I worry about, in the long run, is the tendency of a workshop to sand off all the interesting edges from a writer. Workshops frequently reward writers of competent prose who can tell stories that are smaller in scope and easy to understand. A group of writers will find it easier to agree about certain kinds of stories -- the kind that ought to sell to magazines, because we've all read exactly that kind of story in magazines -- than about more ambitious stories. The more ambitious or individual a story is, the argument goes, the fewer readers that story will find. So play it safe: tone down the interesting stuff.

The problem with this kind of advice is that there are a lot of writers out there who can pull off an accomplished and enjoyable story. (Like I said, I could have selected a whole handful of pretty good stories this month.) So even though some of you are writing stories that are good enough to be published, you're competing for magazine space with writers who already have readers, and relationships with editors. Your competent stories may not actually be good enough to sell to the magazines that you would most like to be in. So what do you do? You can make a career (and a name for yourself) out of selling work to second- and third-tier magazines. But again, there are a lot of pretty good writers out there. Even at a zine like _Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet_, we have a backlog of two issues' worth of short stories. We have more good work than we can publish. So what can you do?

What I would like to see workshop members doing, now, is beginning to submit more ambitious work. The only thing you have to offer an editor, and readers, is you. Your voice. Stories and characters and narrative twists that only you are strange enough to want to write. Take risks. Some of you are in critique circles that have been going for quite some time. You know each other well enough to have built trust. And it takes trust to show a workshop the kind of ambitious work I'd like to see. Take chances. Write stories whose characters and the endings surprise even you. After you've written them, go back over them and make them even more surprising. And don't think by "ambitious" I mean that the prose style has to be eccentric(although it certainly can be). And read widely -- not just the new stuff, and each other's work, but older work, too. I've been reading through the collection PLATINUM POHL, and there are fantastic and alarming and wonderful short stories in there. Are there some inside you?

--Kelly Link

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {49}

Page 2 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

E.C. Myers

(no subject)

from: ecmyers
date: Jun. 2nd, 2006 10:07 pm (UTC)
Link

Very helpful letter! Thanks for sharing it. This is a challenge someone in a writing group recently issued to me regarding one of my stories--she used Kelly's "Stone Animals" as an example of how to take risks with my work, and it's nice to see Kelly further explain how one can go about it. (I came over here via Toby's blog, by the way.)

Reply | Thread

(no subject)

from: ellameena
date: Jun. 3rd, 2006 12:24 pm (UTC)
Link

Can you explain this a little more? "Stone Animals" was a story that simply didn't pull me in. After a couple of attempts to read it, and having been distracted and lost my place more than once, having put it down to do other things and then found myself uncurious about how the story ended or what it was about, I finally gave up. Go ahead and spoil it for me--what kind of risks do you mean, specifically?

I'm an experienced writer, and I'm a bit confused about the term "risk" in this context as well. I think I know what sorts of things Charlie is referring to, but I wouldn't call those risks. I'd call them "details". I'd call it doing deep imaginative work rather than going for the first thing that comes into your head. When I think of risk in writing, I think of politically charged subjects or raunchy sex scenes or other topics that could offend your reader, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Kelly was getting at.

Reply | Parent | Thread

E.C. Myers

(no subject)

from: ecmyers
date: Jun. 5th, 2006 05:07 am (UTC)
Link

I think in the case of "Stone Animals" it was writing a story that defies traditional ideas of story, not tying everything up with a nice little bow, writing about weird occurrences without explaining them, leaving the ending ambiguous... I want to reread the story and then I might be able to come up with a better response; I am frequently mystified by Kelly's stories, but they succeed for me anyway, though there are exceptions.

Actually, I think Kameron Hurley does a better job of addressing the idea of taking risks and the unique voice of an author in her blogpost on the subject.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Jay Lake

(no subject)

from: jaylake
date: Jun. 3rd, 2006 04:02 pm (UTC)
Link

Thanks for posting that for us non-OWWers, Charlie.

Reply | Thread

C. C. Finlay

(no subject)

from: ccfinlay
date: Jun. 3rd, 2006 10:09 pm (UTC)
Link

Sure, Jay. Glad to do it.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Indirectly

(no subject)

from: pickledherring
date: Jun. 9th, 2006 06:53 pm (UTC)
Link

"Are there some inside you?"

God I hope not because that would probably require surgery.




...
(No, really, it was a great post - thanks for sharing it!)

Reply | Thread

(no subject)

from: hasyer
date: Apr. 10th, 2008 10:04 pm (UTC)
Link

Thank you.

---------------------
muhabbet | korku | msn nickleri | msn nickleri | netlog

Reply | Thread