Last month’s Slush Pile was another inspiring, interesting, and informative session, filled with praise for work well done and suggestions to make work better.
Noah Stetzer (Associate Director, Bull City Press), Tracy Crow (Tracy Crow Literary Agency), and Ty Stumpf (Poet and Humanities Chair, Central Carolina Community College), would have continued to read many of the entries because they were good stories well told. What does that mean?
- Grounded in space and time
- Unfamiliar setting or time contains enough familiarity for the reader to understand.
- Trustworthy writer
- Story fits reader understanding of the world, even if unknown because the writer followed the rules of the world story is set in. The reader can believe what is being told is possible because the writer knows what they are writing about
- Trust is eroded when there is any notable contrast to what is known; when the reader feels the writer knows more than the reader or feels the writer didn’t think about the reader; when there is a lessening of tension; and/or when the reader is not sure why they are invited to read to the page.
- Action is combined with necessary information
- Writer used good sentence structure and word choices
- Short sentences denote anxiety
- Sentences of varied length provide rhythm
- Word choice is precise and deliberate
- Starting sentences with ‘there’ can be confusing
- Use of ‘it’ is imprecise
- Action is parsed out
- Action contains emotive response so the reader becomes invested in the story
- Disagreements create tension and can be action
- Details/information is parsed out
- Hints of what the story is about—what the protagonist wants and what stands in the way.
The panelist wouldn’t have continued to read all the submissions, unfortunately, because:
- Unclear protagonist/narrator
- Okay but reader must trust they will find out soon
- Reporting/telling what is happening
- Don’t report feeling—invite the reader to feel
- Throat clearing:
- Set-up info which may or may not be necessary—readers don’t know where it will lead
- Direction doesn’t seem to have any connection with characters
- Generalities wanting details
- Details without emotive backing
- Details without connection to a character
- No character development
- Stereotypical characters
- No challenge for the character/no conflict or tension
- No emotional investment
- Not grounded in time or space
- Too much going on for reader to know what was important.
- Story sacrificed for voice
- Inconsistent voice
- Technical/mechanical errors, e.g. syntax or grammar errors
- Use setup instead of “!” – if any examination points must be used, their number should be limited to one per manuscript
- Needs polishing
- Repetition without purpose
- In memoir—didn’t know anything about the writer
In addition, the panel suggested:
- Dreams are usually not interesting unless the dreamer learns something important
- Contemporary references are questionable. Ask yourself how long will the references be understood? How would the story be read without knowledge of them?
- Universal/commonly written about objects—trees/mountains/ocean, etc.—are only interesting when you provide a fresh perspective, e.g., show why you are awed or bring in unexpected references
- Cliches are okay to use if used purposefully
- Unclear protagonist/narrator are okay, but reader must trust they will find out soon