I’m working on the Editor Unleashed/ Smashwords Flash Fiction 40 Contest anthology. As I read these stories once again, I’m stunned by the breadth and depth of talent displayed in this contest. It was a tough field. Choosing the best 40 out of 280 stories was a huge challenge to me and the forum members who participated in ranking the stories. In fact, it delivered a truckload of writer-ly angst if you want to know the truth. Now that things have started to cool off, I’d like to offer a few thoughts about how this contest transpired.
The guiding principle of the Flash Fiction 40 contest was that the stories would be submitted into the forum for member viewing and ranking. As I’ve said many times, I wanted writers to get an up-close-and-personal view behind the scenes of a writing contest. And I also wanted to give writers a chance to help rank the winners—never an easy task.
I was interested in seeing whether or not the cream really would rise to the top, since this is one of prevalent myths of the new era of publishing via Web 2.0. Many websites, including Harper Collins Authonomy are using a similar model of writers fielding the slush. But does it really work?
Well, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that, in my opinion, the popular ranking picked some of the best stories entered in the contest. I read all of the stories—first highest ranked to lowest and then lowest to highest—and the difference in quality was both clear and striking. More than half of the stories that made the final editorial cut into the Flash Fiction 40 were in the top 40 popular picks. And all of the 40 winning stories were in the top 80.
So I think there is merit in the popular ranking method of voting. But it sure comes with a price. We endured frayed nerves including several melt downs and some severe lashing out. The peer scrutiny and competitive environment was more than some writers could take.
And when I asked on the forum for feedback on how to make the contest better next time, many requested full editorial control and blind judging, and said they didn’t have time to read all of the stories. In other words, go back to the old ways.
But angst aside, I think the writers who went into the contest in the spirit of wanting to learn and grow got a lot out of being involved in this contest. So I plan to bring it back again next year with some tweaks—including invisible stars so writers won’t have to endure the excruciating drama of watching their stories rise and fall in the eyes of their peers. But I’m always open to other suggestions.
If you have thoughts about how you’d like to see this contest transform, please leave a comment.
-Maria Schneider
Flickr photo by zahni
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I wonder if invisible stars won’t make it that much more angstful for people, knowing they’re being ranked by peers but not being able to even see how.
But I appreciated the experiment and look forward to reading the antho once you’ve put it together. :)
Other than the technical glitches at first (and those are to be expected, right?), I thought the contest was completely reasonable. :)
I think this was a great experiment in writers getting to really see if they want what they think they want. Just like we may complain about the existing publishing model, but would a writer want to do all that work and keep all the profits? Most likely not. I love that you did this, Maria!
I thoroughly enjoyed the whole process and would do it again. Writing is a very personal experience and sometimes putting a competitive aspect to it can create some interesting results.
Sometimes the cliché is unavoidable: You’re never going to please all of the people all of the time. The popular vote is balanced by the editorial review, or the editorial review abrogates the will of the people, depending on whether or not one’s story made the cut.
I thought the contest was enlightening on many different levels. I’d participate again without any hesitation.
–John
The entire process was fascinating on many levels, including the angst. The opportunity to read so many stories, told in uniquely different voices, was invaluable to me. I learned quite a bit from the experience.
I would definitely participate again.
Laura
I like that you were doing this, at least in part, as an experiment to see how and if new models work. That’s sort of my approach too, trying out new models.
I thought the open nature of the process (seeing what you were up against) was very useful. Still not a big fan of community voting, but have to admit it seems to have worked out pretty well in this case.
I too am looking forward to the anthology.
~jon
I think that not having stars is the way to go, Maria. Sure there’s angst in that too–but there’s no way to be a writer without angst. It comes with the job description.
I think that, in spite of glitches which were to be expected, it was an interesting and worthwhile contest. I don’t know if I’ll enter again if only because I write so little flash. But I’ll certainly consider it if I have something available and I think it was a wonderful idea.
Thanks.
I learned so much. After reading the first three pages of entries I realized how much a first sentence means. And a second sentence. It made me go back and really study my openings. I learned there are a great number of talented people out there and that if I want to succeed I need to work hard, study the markets, make sure I’m submitting the right stories to the right places. I learned most writers want to help their peers. I learned you must have a tough skin and a willingness to take criticism in order to improve. I learned that though my emotions went up and down with my ranking my story stayed true and I was proud I’d put it out there.
Thank you, Maria, for this opportunity. I will definitely enter again.
DeborahB