Tomayto, Tomahto

I just received my entry for the CO Gold Writing Contest. My total score was 74 out of 120. Not horrendous, but not what I expected. I think I was hoping for the 90s. No, I have to be honest. I was hoping to score past 100 and make it to the finals. I had comments from two judges. Given that and the subject of this post, I think you can see where I'm going.

Let's discuss the similarities.

They both considered my entry average for a writing contest with a few things above average. Nothing up to publishable standards. Makes me wonder what I'd score if I had submitted the first 20 pages as they are now. Well, then there's the matter of my synopsis, which they both agreed was confusing and generally icky. I hope my one-pager for Teresa's class is better. It was easier to write, oddly. Cramming 500 pages into 1 makes it hard to juggle all the subplots and characters, so I ended up not even mentioning Denise's husband, and a whole host of other things. I got the main action there, with the primary characters (minus Aidan, unfortunately; couldn't figure out how to squeeze him in) and their motivations (I think). But in 8 pages, you've suddenly got all this room. At least you think you do. And you try to fit more in then you should and end up sacrificing things you shouldn't. As Judge 1 put it: "The vagueness that plagues the chapters also marks the synopsis," (at least I'm consistent :)) "Some subplots seem unexplained, and the climax actions are a bit confusing. Complete as to plot and theme, however." (yippee!) Judge 2 put it: "I also felt that you set up a question of 'how will genome knowledge change the world,' but turned story into a shoot-em-up by the end. Is it SF/idea story, or thriller with genre as excuse for action?" A damn good question. And one I suppose I better have a solid answer for by Teresa's class. I was aiming for the former, but the synopsis makes it seem like the latter (well, let's hope that's just a product of the synopsis).

Both had concerns as to whether or not my entry could accurately be called science fiction. But Judge 1 thought it might even wander into the area of "legal thriller" wherease Judge 2 seemed to think it would be a more generic thriller.

They both agreed that Denise is pretty static right now. I caught that too during revisions and (hopefully) fixed a lot of that. Both noted overall that the stakes weren't clear or high enough. Judge 1 put it best: "This reads generically. Give it some blood and spleen...make readers FEEL." Which is something else I already knew about my writing style. I'm far too cerebral. I stick around in my characters' heads more than anything. I've come a long way in the past few years, but I've got a ways to go.

And now for the differences.

Judge 1: "There isn't a hook." Judge 2: "I was interested to read on."
Judge 1: "Eugene is a blank." Judge 2: "Eugene is weird and compelling....I'm very clear on him."
Judge 1 liked the classroom debate scene but thought the boardroom scene was too vague and problematic. Judge 2 liked the boardroom scene but thought the classroom debate scene was too vague and problematic.

*sigh*

I think Judge 1 summed it up best though: "Nothing amiss, nothing wonderful." The comment was in reference to my storytelling style, specifically my voice, but I think that can kind of put it all together. Although, Judge 1 gave me this ego-boosting yet extremely helpful morsel: "A really cool, intellectual promise the should interest SF readers, but clarity and character development are critical to bringing the real story out." The first part is the ego-yumminess. The last part is the really helpful bit.

A few other comments that struck me as interesting, funny, helpful, or whatnot:

Judge 2: "Style is fairly transparent" (WTF? I'm transparent, ohmigod, how mean. Hmm, let me read on.) "So I can see the story without words getting in the way." (Oh, I see. Transparent = good in this case. Gotcha.)

Judge 2: "Raises interesting questions about where genetic research could lead - but as an SF reader, I'm more interested in the extrapolation of 'what if' than in ethics debates in here and now classrooms - I'd suggest leaping to future sooner." (Which is something I've heard before and been genuinely concerned about in billing HD as scifi. But I kinda liked the idea of a novel that shows how we got into messes such as Brave New World, and - more importantly - shows ways we can avoid getting into said mess.)

Judge 1: "Denise needs to be more than a camera." (This called to mind my first A+ college paper about Italo Calvino's Mr. Palomar. I wrote about how Mr. Palomar tried to be a human telescope and failed. Interesting connection, one that might help me out some. And I was a freshman when I wrote it. /proud musings)

Judge 1: "Tags are clumsy, often doubled." (Yeah, I used to think that I couldn't just keep using "said" over and over. I tried to get creative, which I've learned is an icky, bad, naughty thing to do when it comes to tags. But I think I also stumbled onto a pet peeve here for Judge 1.

I'm also beginning to wonder if Teresa Nielsen Hayden was a judge in this contest, and if so, was she Judge 1. If so, *waves to Teresa*. Judge 1's comments were more blunt and critical, but also more helpful than Judge 2's. Judge 2 did a great job of praising my strengths while still detailing my weaknesses. But together, while the comments put a ding or two in my ego (never a bad thing), they overall helped tremendously and confirmed things I've already realized about my writing as well as showed me some new things. And that's my first ever writing contest, my first ever submission of any kind. Nothing amiss, nothing wonderful. :)