Stories that begin with descriptions are the worst offenders. I receive dozens of these. Descriptions of pastoral scenes or bustling streets in exotic foreign lands or the weather, or even a description of Joe waking up in the morning, don’t tell me who’s involved and what’s at stake (unless Joe is on fire). They don’t tell me why I should care about whatever this eventually turns out to be about.
I am also squeamish about stories that begin with a piece of dialog (I don’t know who’s talking, or why), and stories that begin with background information. A teacher of mine called this type of opening “throat-clearing”. Skip the intro. Just get on with it!
A few of my prejudices - I don’t want to see any more stories where the P-O-V character has Alzheimer’s. I don’t want to see stories that depend on dreams; I don’t trust dreams in fiction. I cringe when I begin reading another story about “mama”. I have a bias against stories in which the main characters are children or animals. I am bored by stories in which the characters suffer from some indefinable, generalized angst or ennui. I have a bias against stories which are mostly internal monologue or exposition; I want to see the characters “in scene”.
I must also admit a prejudice against experimental fiction, or meta-fiction. My experience has been that most writers who claim to be writing such fiction are doing so because they cannot write a traditional story. But I try to keep an open mind.reading this information completely turned me off to submitting a story to them. not only because of the restrictions/biases/pet peeves/seemingly minor annoyances that this editor felt necessary to communicate to writers, but also because it reminded me how jaded editors can be.
i realize that the amount of terrible writing these people receive has made them intolerant to reading anything less than what they consider "good" writing. well, too bad. maybe they shouldn't be literary magazine editors.
more importantly, reading this has discouraged me. maybe it's because it is sunday and i'm a little mopey i have to go into work early tomorrow, but this was a major bummer for me to read. previous to reading this, i submitted a story i recently revised to a number of publications. now i am feeling doubtful about my work. as if writers need another line item on their list of anxieties. now i should be wary of editors with a prejudice against experimental fiction. fantastic!
what is it about the submissions process that upends my confidence and turns my usual proud self esteem into a pile of jelly? i know that successful writers need nerves of steel to make it in the business, but what is it about some (certainly not all) editors and publishers that make it a point to test those nerves? if an editor doesn't like a story, simply send out the rejection form and move on. i feel that the only restrictions a publication should list as an official guideline is the preferred manuscript/submission format and the theme/genre of the publication. everything else is purely preferential. it's one thing to state a manifesto, it's another thing to ridicule style.
i once had a teacher who taught writing through a list of rules. no dreams, no memories, no telephone conversations, no misplaced modifiers, no talking animals, no first person POV, and so on. here's my thing: short stories have a very basic set of rules to adhere to. everything else is fair game. if it works, it works. if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. making lists of specific things to avoid in a short story is pointless and self-gratifying BS.
and so, one rant spawned another. i promise it will be the last. although, i do feel better now.
