I haven't failed, I've just found 100 editors and agents who don't believe in me

When i got four rejections on the same day recently I had a massive downer.  It was time for some swift self-esteem boosting measures.

And then I remembered the famous Thomas Edison quote: "I have not failed.  I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." And it occurred to me that this was just as relevant to trying to get published, albeit in a slightly altered form.  What an inspiration that quote is!  And it gave me a clue to a new way of dealing with faceless rejections.

Because, of course, every rejection that comes in is a failure.  It's a failure to convince another person of the brilliance of our prose, or the brilliance of our ideas.  And it hurts.

But, having got picked off the unsolicited slushpile once, I know I'm not deluding myself that I can write.  That was a major publisher, and the submission was made without an agent.   A tiny, tiny, proportion of scripts get followed up from this source.  I had the whole manuscript read, and received some fabulous feedback on my world-creation and characters.  A serious publisher thought my writing was good.

Since then I've had lots of this type of infuriating feedback on my short stories.  You know the sort of thing, "I love this character, she's really spunky... But we're not going to publish your story anyway."

And that brings me back to Edison's quote.  The most important thing in engaging with the brutal edifice of publishing is to make sure we keep our self-esteem intact.  And Edison's quote gives me the lead to doing that.  I haven't failed, I've just found a hundred editors and agents who don't believe in my writing.

Some will, some won't.  Next!  Their lack of belief in me is their problem.  It isn't going to destroy my self-belief.  Because the publishing process is all about belief.  It's about finding people who believe in me and in the world-visions set out in my novels.  And when I get downhearted I remind myself that even people like NASA fail.  Twenty of their first 28 attempts to send a rocket into space failed.

But now we have the International Space Station, and NASA is planning to go to Mars.  So persistence pays off, and i intend to follow that lead.  And one day, I will find the agent and editor who do believe in me and my work.  Watch out then, for I'll take off like one of NASA's rockets.

.

Short story competitions - falling between the cracks

As a science fiction writer, short story competitions have always been problematical for me.  If I enter  an SF competition, then the judges are looking for something 'radical', something that 'pushes the boundaries of the genre'.  They're looking for weird tech, or aliens.  But if you look at the winning stories you'll often find that marriage still exists in those worlds, and men still control women.  Hmm.  A strange kind of 'radical'

Now the thing is, the kind of 'radical' I write is rather different, and a good deal quieter than the those stories.  For a start, it's usually near-future, a hundred or two hundred years ahead, and human societies are not radically removed from today's.  

My 'radical' stories challenge current culture.  They imagine a society where people have grown beyond the use of recreational sex to bolster their self-esteem.  But that isn't a kind of 'radical' that competition judges want to see.  Neither, it seems, are stories where women have been totally freed from the burden of childbearing.  SF might speculate about the future, but this, it seems, is a step too far.

So perhaps I should try a general writing competition.  I've considered submitting short stories to two recently.  And I started by researching the judges.  Both were female, but that's not necessarily a good thing for me.  I discovered that one of them was an ex-editor of a romance imprint.nn I can't imagine such a judge, steeped in the world of cozy, unrealistic, romance, looking kindly at a story which contains zero romance.  In fact, it might even outlaw romance in that world.

So that was one competition ruled out.  What about the other one?  That judge was an author of contemporary women's books.  Books about relationships and cozy families.  So I can't see an  SF story which challenges the basis of her world doing well in that competition either.

This kind of falling between the cracks is common for me, and so damned annoying.  What I'm looking for are competitions that appreciate a conventionally-written story with a beginning, middle and end, a story that challenges the conventions of current western socieities.  And so far, I haven't found the entrance to that magic world between the cracks where I belong.

Throwaway sexual comments = quickest way to lose my readership

I've recently started reading an SF book by a male author who is highly regarded.  This is part of my tug of war love/hate relationship with the genre.  It's the books by men that gain most of the plaudits, and the ones most likely to be included on lists of 'ten best SF authors' books you must read'.

I have a real problem with some of the books I've tried to read, mainly because they portray a future that is as hostile to women as the present patriarchal sexualised society is.  Let me give you an example.  One book I started reading had a section which I think was supposed to be a prologue, although it wasn't clear from the headings. And that section consisted of a male character reminiscing about the past.

Nothing wrong with that, you say. Except that at one point he's thinking about a woman.  And we get one line of her dialogue.  And that line is her saying that she really wants to come.  Oh, please!  I have no idea who this stray woman was in terms of the story.  I don't know if she's the other character's girlfriend, or some prostitute he had casual sex with.  

The cynical, weary side of me says that this piece of writing is there as a cheap device to lure in male readers with the promise of sex.  This woman appears on the first page, so you'll probably think that the narrative includes sex and buy the book.

This cheap titillation device lost me as a potential reader of that author's work.  If his level of respect for women is to put them as anonymous characters into his books with their only thoughts about sex then I don't want to read his work.  Because he isn't respecting women, and I expect respect.

I want to read stories that give me some hope for the future.  And the biggest hope you could show me was a world where both men and women have grown up.  Where neither sex uses sex as a way to raise their self esteem.  They don't need to, because their self-esteem is high without that.

That's why books like Ancilary Justice caused such a stir in the SF world.  Because they turned everything our culture tells us about sex and gender on its head, breaks it apart and shows us how constructed, how false it is.

And that's why I have a love/hate relationship with male SF writers' books.  Because all too often I see no trace of a change, no shred of hope that the future can be better.  And my time and my money are limited, so why should I spend either with people who don't respect me?

The eyes of the beholder - the case for multi-viewpoints

Two-thirds of the way through my re-write of Snowbird I realised that the story still wasn't working.  The   manuscript still wouldn't be fit to submit for publication once I'd finished.

As the story is over twenty years old you might be forgiven for thinking that I was just tinkering with the story, afraid to say that I'd finished with it.  But you'd be wrong.

The first major problem is that the whole novel is in the viewpoint of one person, Jian Kabana, my starship Coder.  Certainly she's the major character, and most of the events in the book revolve around her, but there are many problems with telling the story only through her eyes,

One is that it made it hard to describe Jian's appearance - at least, without resorting to the old routine  of the character seeing herself in the mirror.  And in the early drafts I'd done just that.  But I felt that it was important to say that she had dusky skin.  Her mother was white-skinned and her father dark-skinned, so naturally Jian's skin tone is somewhere between them.  But if I didn't mention this up front, most readers would make the assumption that she was white.

The second problem with one viewpoint was that I couldn't get into the head of her friend and Scwanberger security guy Brett Dorado.  I wanted him to confirm that, despite her wild looks, Jian is an ace Coder.  And I wanted him to reveal that he is a cyborg, as a result of being a victim of an illegal military programme.  Only he knew some of that information, so he had to reveal it.

And the third reason I need multi-viewpoints is that I'm planning on writing a series of books based around the Darius orbital shipyard location.  In fact, I already have a very rough first draft of the second book, Darius.  That is a multi-viewpoint book, and although it needs re-writing, it already has more pace than the first book.  So by re-writing Snowbird in multi-viewpoints, I'll be setting the pattern for what I hope will be a long series of books.

My last reason for re-vamping the book was pace.  With one character only, she has to do a lot of thinking about or straight telling of what's happening to other characters.  And that slows the pace down and makes the book plodding.

I've re-written five chapters so far, in three viewpoints, and the book works much better.

Diverse submissions - but are they diverse stories?

I've been trawling the submission requirements of some new science fiction magazines this week, and I've noticed an interesting development.  Quite a few carry diversity statements.  They're at pains to point out they welcome work from under-represented groups like .... well, all the usual suspects.

This is something I've seen gradually increasing during the last year, and it's a very welcome development.  But I'm wondering if it'll make any difference to my chances of success as an SF short story writer. Because encouraging submissions from people of diverse backgrounds is an easy win.  You can measure your progress and point to statistics to show the world how well you're doing.  You can make yourself look good on the VIDA count.  

But the thing is, diverse people also have diverse world views.  And if you're serious about attracting submissions from different groups of people, then you have to be serious about publishing diverse story content too.  But so far that doesn't appear to be happening.  I've read stories that support the patriarchal culture, marriage, and women relegated to the role of mother.  And work division on gender grounds.  None of these things describes my life, and these stories don't serve me or speak to me.

The thing is, as well as magazines honouring my physical diversity, I want them to honour my diversity of mind too.  For me, that means accepting stories which show the evil, exploitative side of sex, which question and challenge the religion of 'the family', and the notion that human breeding is a good thing. I want to see stories about reducing human population and increasing wildlife.  I want to see less about shiny tech and much more about the environmental consequences of making and using that shiny tech.

 

But I'm not seeing that.   A wandering multi-viewpoint story about UFOs outside a diner in the middle of nowhere America just doesn't do it for me.

Sorry, magazines,  must try harder.  Much, much harder.  You're supposed to be the place where we see brave new worlds.  But the future I see in your pages is more of the same, an extension of the culture we have today.  And the prospect of our current patriarchal, discriminatory, sex-obsessed culture extending into the future isn't one I find attractive.  And I certainly don't want to read about it in your magazine.

I'll pass on 'pushing the boundaries', thanks

"This magazine is looking for stories that push the boundaries in form and voice."  So a new SF magazine announced this week.  There goes another gimmicky market it's not worth me submitting to.

This isn't a question of lack of self belief, or of belief in my writing. It's a declaration of self-knowledge and strength.  I've read the starts of a lot of these "pushing the boundaries" stories recently.  And I've rarely got past the second or third paragraph before I'm bored silly.

Often the ideas in these stories are totally impractical.  Tech migh be able to do wonderful things very quickly, but I simply refuse to believe that the human body will be able to change its skin colour every day any time in the near future.  Biology  needs more time to evolve, but why would it evolve to do that?  What evolutionary advantage would it give us?

And that's my problem with a lot of these "pushing the boundaries" stories.  They haven't just pushed the boundaries, they've destroyed them.  So many of them have no points of reference with the science we know today,  and yes, I know we can't predict how radically tech will change our lives in the future.  But while the tech may change at lightning speed, human biology won't.  At least, not naturally.  Genetic modification might make some radical changes, but I suspect we'd find out what we  don't know about the process pretty quick.  And most likely in negative ways like terminal illnesses.

Others of these "boundary" stories have left me thinking "is that it?" when I've reached the end.  So  you've had one off-the-wall idea and spewed it onto the page.  But that's just an idea, not a story,  and ideas are a dime a dozen.

This is where I usually part company with the "pushing the boundaries" stories.  The envelope becomes so pushed that it's totally unrecognisable as an envelope.  Stories start somewhere, they progress somewhere, and they end somewhere.  Beginning, middle, end.  Not always presented in that order, but always there somewhere.  Without them there is no story.

Without them what's left is no more tnan a character or idea sketch showing off the shiny new idea. And I have a hard time caring about those.  So I'll pass on pushing the boundaries, thanks.

The moral in the military

For years I resisted reading any military SF.  The idea of reading about massive space fleets killing each other just wasn't for me.  I come from a family with no real connection to the military, and I had this misplaced idea that military SF would glamourise and glorify war.

I still haven't read much military SF, but what I have read was written by women: Elizabeth Moon and Karen Traviss. Both these authors do have connections with the military.  Elizabeth Moon was a 1st Leuitenant in the US Marine Corps the 1960s.  Karen Traviss is a former defence correspondent and journalist.

I started reading both writers' works unsure if I would like what I found there.  My objection to reading military SF was the same as to reading violent crime.  I don't want to read about blood and gore.  I don't want to read graphic descriptions of people being killed, whether it's by a murderer or the latest military hardware.

I'm sure such graphic books are out there.  But the books I've read by Elisabeth and Karen aren't among them.  Both authors' books are multi-viewpoint, and what surprised me was that some of these viewpoints were civilian.  Far from being a glorification of war, both authors' books explore the consequences of war and the fall-out from military engagement.

In Elizabeth Moon's Vatta's War books we're told that an ansible platform is under attack,  and that 4,000 people live on it.  It has to be defended to save those lives,

In Karen Traviss's Halo: Kilo-Five books the whole of the third book is in effect a moral examination of terrorism and the legality of government action.  We're told that the supposed good guys, the UNSC, abducted small children and bioengineered them into super-soldiers.  We're shown how devastated one of the fathers who lost his child is.  So when he becomes a terrorist to find out the truth about his daughter's disappearance, where does the moral high ground lie?

Both authors have used the military format to explore moral issues, and to examine why we must protect civilian freedoms.  And that's my kind of military SF.  One that has its moral heart firmly in place.