A Question for James A. Ritchie

James,

You said once in another thread that once there was a magazine that you'd submitted stories to without success, but then you took some time to read stories by first-time contributers that the magazine had published, found out what the elements were that the magazine was looking for, wrote a story, and got it published.

I'm not interested in which magazine it was or even what the elements were for that particular magazine, but in your process. When you study a magazine or books by a certain publisher, how do you go about it?

(If other writers who have done this sort of thing would like to contribute, please feel free. I asked James because I do remember him mentioning doing this, and he has had excellent success...)

I use to go to the library and do this for magazines I wanted to be published in.

Ok, I always say I don't write to theme, but when writing short stories you will find that themes predominate.

In the broadest sense you do not submit a story to Christian Quarterly questioning God's wisdom. You submit a story that shows that in the end you learned God was right even though you questioned His wisdom.

The old time true confessions followed the "sin, suffer, and repent" rule. A housewife with a dud for a hubby thought about kissing an exciting new man she met...But just before this horrid event had a chance to occur she would see something that reminded her of her child and all her obligations... Then she would feel unbearably guilty... Whereupon she would repent her sinful thoughts and run back home to Mr. Hubby of everlasting Boredom.

See what themes are most used, what are never used. This is not a time to be innovative.

See what types of characters the magazine prefers. Are the men machoistic or sensitive? Are the women assertive or clingy? Do the good guys have a sense of humor or do they take things seriously.

Make a note of the social and financial level of the characters in the stories. Don't even bother writing about people in the slums if all the other stories are aimed at yuppies with college degrees.

Check to see how dialog is handled: A lot or a little: Banter or always on the subject: Argumentative or cooperative.

Check to see how descriptions are handled: detailed, flat, poetic, terse. You might break it down to character description and place description.

Check to see how narrative is handled. How intrusive is the author: Tell? Show? Examples? A lot or a little?

You don't always need to consciously check all of these things but it won't hurt to have them in mind.

Do check the advertising. Publishers want to please, not offend, advertisers. If a character shows up at the wrong time because of a faulty watch and the magazine has a two Page ad for watches your story will not be published. The same is true for banana peels.

Hope some of this helps.

Thanks, Writing Again. Yes, it does help.

If you send an sae, most mags will send you a copy of their Writers' Guidelines, too.

If you send an sae, most mags will send you a copy of their Writers' Guidelines, too.

Click to expand...

That is so routine -- Not to mention obvious -- And I left it out.

I'm glad I never bragged about my brilliance.

You said once in another thread that once there was a magazine that you'd submitted stories to without success, but then you took some time to read stories by first-time contributers that the magazine had published, found out what the elements were that the magazine was looking for, wrote a story, and got it published.

Click to expand...

I had to be talking about Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine.
First, guidelines are a must, but alone they mean little or nothing. To stand any real chance of being published, you have to read issues of teh magazine. Guidelines are always too general. They're more useful in telling you what not to do than what to do.

Anyway, it's pretty simple stuff, but for me it all came as a revelation, and made me understand how to write stories that a given editor will want far more often than not.

What I did was study the structure of the stories, the professions of the protagonists, the amount of dialogue, the length of the average story (Guidelines often mean squat where length is concerned.), every element I could separate, I studied.

But the important part was this: There's an old rule in fiction that editors want "Something just like everything else, only different." At first read, this often seems to make no sense, but I found it was the most important rule in the world. It came as a revelation when, in studying those stories, I finally understood what it meant and how to do it.

I found nearly all those stories gave the editor the same things in length, in basic style, in all the essentials that that editor thought made for a good story. But nearly every story also gave the editor something new, something different.

I then read every story the magazine had published for a couple of years, listing all the settings, all the professions, all the similarities I could find.

I then wrote a story that had the length and same pace and the same story elements this editor seemed to like, but I gave her a protagonist with a profession none had yet had, placed it in a setting she hadn't seen, and used a plot that was new. It sold.

But there was more to it. I also realized editors always want things they aren't getting, and that I could almost always figure out what this is by reading several issues of a magazine and dissecting the stories. I didn't even have to do it carefully, once I learned how. I could just read a bunch of stories, see what the editor wanted, and also, by implication, see what she wanted but wasn't getting.

If you can write at all well, and if you give an editor something she wants that no one else is offering, you're ten steps ahead of everyone else submitting stories.

That last step was then figuring out what I could give the editor that was written the way she liked, at the length she liked, but that was also something different, something no one else but me could give her.

That was easy. I gave her myself. In that first story, the protagonist isn't named, but he's me. He's a modern day writer of western novels, and the story start with him/me at a book signing. This really happened. Someone came in who doesn't like his novel becuase he thinks they don't follow "The code of the west." This really happened. That person says his name is William Bonney A.K.A Billy the Kid. This, too, really happened.

The story then turns to fiction wherein the modern day Billy the kid kidnaps my wife and forces me into a gunfight, wherein I cheat, again breaking The Code of the West. The story was called "The Real West."

I then wrote another story where I'm not the protagonist, but the plot is loosely based on something that really happened to me in New Mexico many years ago. It's a mystery, adventure, ghost story, and it was unique.

I then wrote a story set in my hometown, a unique place called Millville, birthplace to Wilbur Wright, a tiny farm town with a population of 100. All three stories sold.

Interestingly, I wasn't selling a very high percentage of my short stories at the time, but a couple of years earlier I had sold two stories to Sports Afield, one backpage and one feature. They paid me $800 and $1,000 respectively, a LOT of money for any short story at the time, but especially high for stories that were only a couple of thousand words long.

When I read those stories again, I realized I had inadvertently used the same rules I didn't know consciously until the Ellery Queen deal.

I've since sold a lot of short stories, and by and large, the process is always the same.

1. I read several issues to get a feel for style and pace and average length. This tells me what the editor wants for sameness.

2. From what I read, I determine what isn't there that the editor would like to see.

3. I find something that I know will be different because I'm the only one who could possibly give the editor a story with this protagonist, this setting, and this plot.

Guidelines are very good things, but no substitute in any way for reading the magazine itself. Look for what's in the stories, the average length, the pace, the type of story the editor likes and the way he or she likes it. Then look for what's not in the stories that you think the editor would like to see. Lastly, look at yourself to see what you can give the editor in the way he or she likes, but that only you can give him or her.

Thanks for that James. That was enlightening. Something so obvious, yet something I wouldn't have thought of by myself.

Cheers.

Excellent post, James, and giving an angle I never thought about myself.

If you can write at all well, and if you give an editor something she wants that no one else is offering, you're ten steps ahead of everyone else submitting stories.

Click to expand...

I would like to emphasize something you touched on:

When reading back issues, don't bother to read back past the current editor unless you are doing so out of curiosity, for the sake of general background, or unless you are looking for ways this editor differs from the last editor.

I found this out the hard way when a rejection slip candidly pointed out "This type of story was popular with my predecessor. Please read current issues before making future submissions."

Frankly I don't expect to ever return to the short story field and I'm glad of it.

I would like to emphasize something you touched on:

When reading back issues, don't bother to read back past the current editor unless you are doing so out of curiosity, for the sake of general background, or unless you are looking for ways this editor differs from the last editor.

Click to expand...

That's an excellent point!

Along the same lines, this means that when a magazine gets a new editor, there's a plus and a minus. It's a fresh start for a magazine you couldn't break into before, but it also means you have to wait until the new editor has been there long enough to use up the backlog and start publsihing her own stories before you can really figure out exactly what she wants.

Thanks, James. That's exactly the sort of advice I was hoping to get. Yes, I do send for and read the guidelines. But I always believed there was more to it than that, especially since guidelines for different magazines tend to be much more alike than the magazines themselves. Thanks again.

Superb insights, James A.

Very revealing, James. Thanks so much for posting this.

Mari

imitation

Please, nobody take this personally. I know the magazines and books out there recommend studying markets as James as described.

I personally cannot write based on imitation. My writing would be dry, arcane, emotionally constipated. I know from experience.

I write first then find the market. The end result may be the same, but the method different.

As a voracious reader and life-long student I soak up style and syntax of other writers. But to sit down and say, "I'm gonna write according to this published format..." I will do this for non-fiction, especially computer and high tech writing, and web content.

But my own creative fiction? No way Hose. I am fascinated by those who can.

Since I'm an anonymous nobody posting on the Internet, my opinion carries little weight, perhaps.

Tonight I read S. Kings recent Foreword and Intro in the newest ed. of "Gunslinger". He says what I've said here more eloquently.

We all do what works, and I appreciate that.

Merry Christmas.

Re: imitation

I personally cannot write based on imitation. My writing would be dry, arcane, emotionally constipated. I know from experience.

Click to expand...

It isn't about imitation. The only things you imitatre are the things you're going to have to get the way the editor likes them anyway, which is length and type and form. It's easier and better to do this intentionally than by a hit and miss method.

Originality in creative fiction comes in the form of idea, plot, characterizaion, and dialogue, and one of the main reason you study fiction in a magazine is to make sure these parts are original and creative.

Good writers do this all the time, intentionally or not. It's why writers are told to read many issues of any magazine before submitting to it. It's simply the same process done with forethought.

I, too, write many stories first, then look for a market later, only because sometimes a story comes to me full-blown from out of nowhere and so I write it. But that story will not be one bit more creative, not one whit more orginal, than a story written specifically for a given magazine and a given editor.

And all doing it this way means is that you first write the story, then look for the editor who wants it this way.

Writers who reads magazines with the intention of imitationg stories therein just aren't going to get anywhere. All you really do when studying a magazine is look for the template your original idea, plot, characters, and dialogue will fit into.

Originality is what sells the story, not imitation. Slush piles are filled with imitative stories that will almost surely be rejected.

Creativity and originality should never be stifled because that's what sells. The question is, are you going to go about geting the template right in a hit and miss method, or are you going to study the magazine and get the template for your creative and orginal story right the first time.

And even Stephen King read and studied nearly all those magazines he sold short stories to over the years.

Writers who read issue after issue of a magazine, and who then write stories for that magazine, be it me or Stephen King, do exactly what I've describe, most just don't break it down as analytically. But it's still what happens. You read the magazine, and consciously or unconsciously, you start writing stories to fit that magazine. This is just how it works.

If you don't read and study the magazines, if this process doesn't happen in one way or another, you won't even know if your stories are creative and orginal. They make just be same ol' same ol", but you don't know it because you haven't read enough issues of the various magazines.

Imitaion is, however, a good thing. We all learn thorugh imitating the writers we most love to read. We then stick some of ourselves into that imitation, make it our won. This is no different.

It is a bad idea to read magazines with the intent of imitating the stories therein, and I'm in no way suggesting anyone do this. Doing so will cause quick rejections. But simply put, originaliy and creativity have little to nothing to do with the template of the story, and what on earth can be more orginal than giving an editor something no other writer out there is giving her?

This what editors everywhere want. . .something no one else is offering, something new, something fresh, something creative, something original. And this is exactly what you give them by reading and studying the magazine. It's also what they very seldom get from writers who don't read and study the magazine.

But editors also wants his or her own subject and structure, and this is right and just. You can do this hit or miss, or you can do this intentionally, but neither way has anything to do with imitation, creativity, or originality.

Re: imitation

[This was written as James was writing his piece above - I hadn't read his reply when I posted, but knew someone would take up on the imitation bit.]

Thanks, James, and also thanks to Gala for speaking up and sharing her views. You two are like the Yin and Yang of this forum - you don't often agree, but you each hold up your own way as the valid processes they are.

Still, while I write much in the same way as Gala, I don't feel James and the others were out so much for imitation as simply seeing the form in which to fill. Often that can be freeing in itself, since it gives you boundaries in which to go ramping around it. Like the difference between saying, "Write me a story," and "Write me a three-page story for the elderly about a doctor, a blind dog, and a car without a muffler." Suddenly there's a path ahead.

It all depends on what works for you, and thanks to all who are sharing the methods of their madness.

Re: imitation

this is probably why i never felt the least bit ambitious towards writing for a magazine. if i study a mag for a few years' worth of con-template-ation (good one, eh? gawd, that works on so many levels, lol), i could probably develop 'the sight.' 'okay, as far as settings go, i've seen a, b, c, e, and f. gee, which setting should i go for? d?' so i write d. whee-fun for me. same with the characters.

if you know the setting and the characters, the plot writes itself for me most of the time, so in that respect maybe i *should* start writing for magazines. that is if i wanted to work from a template, which isn't interesting to me personally.

i thought gala's reply to the first response was good, and so was the rebuttal. in the end i still don't want to write for magazines, but i grasp the 'creativity' involved inasmuch as is possible from deriving the cracks in the system and exploiting them (i hereby give myself the award for worst written line in this entire thread). in effect, you're being told through the process of elimination what to write, right? what spin an individual puts on it is up to them, of course, but it borders on commission where someone says, 'i want you to write about such-and-such.' i would were the price fitting, it's just something i, and i assume gala, wouldn't actively seek out. kudos to those who do, though. at the same time, that's probably the exact reason why i stopped reading those magazines in the first place-- the stories in large part started to sound as if they were written by the same dude.

Re: imitation

Actually Gala's way is the way I think it should be. Write a beautiful story -- Find a market. It is what I would do were I writing short stories now.

But when I was writing short stories I was trying to earn a living by writing. I needed money. More sales to paying markets meant more money.

I do not believe the experience hurt me. I believe it helped my writing, developed abilities it is hard to develop any other way.

Were I to become a screenwriter it would help me to write to demand, a very necessary ability in that field.

But for short stories...I'll never go back there again.

Re: imitation

Even if you do write the story first, James' breakdown of studying the market is really helpful, just turn it on its head. Write the story, then study the magazines to look for the best match is something that is talked about a lot, but by using James' analytical method, it will make the process of finding that match much easier, IMHO.

Re: imitation

Actually Gala's way is the way I think it should be. Write a beautiful story -- Find a market. It is what I would do were I writing short stories now.

Click to expand...

It's been my experience that even successful writers who tink they're doing this really aren't, at least not to a large degree.

Writer who are routinely published are always readers. Reading is a prerequsite to good writing, and to getting published. Thise who are successsful in magazine writing are those who read a LOT of magazines, just as those who are successful at novel writing are those who read a LOT of novels.

When you read a lot of magazines, and read them regularly, as all successsful magazine writers do, you will pick up the templates of the various magazines you read, and it will be there in your subconscious, and you will use it, or you just aren't going to have much luck at all selling stories.

Wrtiting a beautiful story is a good thing, but a story is never one bit more beautifully written, one bit more creative, one bit more original, because the writer hasn't read a bunch of issues of the magazines it may appear in.

Reading and studying magazines in no way dillutes originality or creativity. If anything, both are enhanced. I don't care how beautiful a story is, if it's been done a hundred times before, no one will want it. Reinventing the wheel just isn't the way to go.

The only way to be original is to first know what's already been done. The only way to know what's already been done is to read every magazine you can get your hands on. And in that reading, any good writer will, intentionally or unintentionally, rapidly or slowly, pick up the template the editor wants. Any any good writer will be influenced by the template.

The template, or structure, is what good writing classes are all about, for that matter. It's the purpose of reading good literature.

And if you write the story before studying any of the magazines, how do you know where to submit it? Just because teh guidelines say "We want modern fantasy" really means almost nothing.

Novel writing is an even clearer example. There's a reason writers are told to read widely within their genre, and it's to learn this template in advance. If you want to sell a story to Harlequin/Silhouette, reading the guidelines is a good thing, but the only way you're going to be successful is if you first read a few bazillion romances novels published by Harlequin/Silhouette.

During this reading, you will pick up on the exact elements I've described for magazines. This is the whole point of reading them. Some writers get the idea quickly, and when they sit down to write the template comes out, the subject and structure and elements the editors of Harlequin/Silhouette want emerge in the novels.

Most wriiters wouldn't dream of writing or submitting a genre novel until they had first read, and studied, a great many novels in that genre. It's the same with magazine writing.

The question is, are you going to use this reading to write something imitative, or to write something original that the editor hasn't seen before, and probably can't see from anyone but you?

There's nothing wrong with writing stories first, but a magazine writer who tries writing short stories without first reading many issues of magazines those stories might appear in has about the same chance of success as a novel writer who decides to write a fantasy novel, even though he's never read one. Anything can happen, but I wouldn't want my mortgage payment resting on that writing getting published.

Re: imitation

My take is, there are many ways to write a story. Clearly when I write a novel, there's a certain way (character development, plot, climax, etc.) When I'm writing a short story, it's somewhat different.

I've never written a story specifically for a magazine, but I doubt that I would change my style drastically just to be published in that magazine, unless it's something I really, really want (like the New Yorker or something). That said, I don't see any problem with following some kind of structure, or form, to tell a story. I've written non-fiction pieces for mags before and pretty much followed a set structure/template (lenght, structure, etc.) I see writing stories for a magazine to be similar.

As a writer though, I think I'm flexible enough to write in different ways. Just because I have to write a certain way doesn't mean I can't be creative. It's all in the characters and settings and story. I should be able to write genres (romance, mystery, thriller, etc.) and they all have some forms you need to follow. Now, whether I want to write genres or spec fic for magazines is entirely something else. So far I haven't. It's not to say I won't in the future.

Re: imitation

Reading the writers who write for editors is a good way to write for the readers who edit publications. That's a truism, no doubt. It may even get you published, if you play all your cards right.

But the fact remains: Originality = Risk

Re: imitation

Without getting into the question of originality, if you have a story you won't know which market to send it to if you aren't familiar with the markets.

This goes for novels, too. How will you know which market to send your novel to if you don't know what kinds of novels they publish?

Read widely, and read in the places you would like to publish.

Re: imitation

I said,

Actually Gala's way is the way I think it should be. Write a beautiful story -- Find a market. It is what I would do were I writing short stories now.

Click to expand...

Your initial comment,

It's been my experience that even successful writers who tink they're doing this really aren't, at least not to a large degree.

Click to expand...

Is probably right most of the time, but Ray Bradbury had a hard time getting published in science fiction magazines at first -- Yet because he found a home for his stories so often in non science fiction magazines he is credited with helping to foster respect for science fiction.

What you say here sounds like a rebuttal to what I said,

Writer who are routinely published are always readers. Reading is a prerequsite to good writing, and to getting published.

Click to expand...

Yet it can't be because I'm one of the prime advocates of "If you don't read you can't write."

I won't even disagree with this,

Thise who are successsful in magazine writing are those who read a LOT of magazines, just as those who are successful at novel writing are those who read a LOT of novels.

Click to expand...

But I would say that in pursuit of the beautiful short story rather than the formulaic "aimed at the editor" short story one should read great short stories, not magazines. Most great and enduring short stories are found in books: anthologies and collections.

Re: imitation

... pursuit of the beautiful short story rather than the formulaic "aimed at the editor" short story...

Click to expand...

This is a false dichotomy. There's nothing stopping people from doing both, and no reason a story aimed at an editor should be anything less than beautiful.

Actually Gala's way is the way I think it should be.

Click to expand...

This is something I meant to ask about before. Why? Why is there any "should be" when you're talking about a creative process.

Re: imitation

Why? Why is there any "should be" when you're talking about a creative process.

Click to expand...

I've found it invaluable to understand what works best for me. Otherwise I'd be trying to imitate what works for others.

This is also why I'm willing to share what works; perhaps others will benefit from what has taken a lifetime to identify.

"Should" is overrated, imho.

I am clear what works for me and don't assume others who work differently are wrong or less creative. The proof is in the pudding, no doubt. IMO writers with a drier, less organic process, show that quality in their work. It's a matter of taste. I'd venture sloppy process leads to sloppy work as well.

I've seen Artists Way denigrated on AW. Why? Cuz it doesn't work for those people. Fine. Yet, in Patricia Cornwell's latest novel, she dedicates to Julia Cameron for teaching her the Artists Way. Cool! Patricia Cornwell, for those who may not know, is one of the top selling commerical novelists of at least a decade, and has won major awards, has a following, etc. Golly, she liked the Artist's Way, must be soft, New Age, suffering artist...Not. Read her books. End of soap box.

HConn asked "why?" Some people are just curious, I guess