Thank you, deb. I will play with it.

Sail, all kinds of Word~ma so you can keep pounding away. And contest~ma, too. Go you!

Cindy, I loved your drabble, but I agree with Deb -- I think rewording that sentence will make it clearer.

Note about writing contests ... It's a total crapshoot.

Oh, definitely. And especially when numeric values are involved. Reading a piece of writing is a gestalt thing -- asking someone to deconstruct it element by element may be the only way to get consistent scores for contest purposes, but it's not the way editors read submissions. And the number always seems too finite -- the difference between a 4 and 6 seems huge, but the written responses that might correlate with those scores would probably be much more similar.

Amy, you're making me extremely glad that I never entered any writing contests. Scary.

Of course, I never even knew there were such things, until very recently.

I used to hate judging, Deb, for that very reason. And I was usually the "prize," you know? A score by an editor. I stopped doing any that wanted me to assign, section by section, numeric values: Is the point of view consistent throughout? Score 1 to 5. That's a yes or no question in my mind. Is the internal conflict introduced early enough and is it clear enough? Score 1 to 5. What if it's introduced late for a good reason? What if it's not spelled out in capital letters right away for a reason? Shudder.

I'm not making light of contests, either -- getting your proposal/partial in front of an editor as a result of finaling is a good and useful thing, and I read some contest entries that inspired me to pursue authors for publication. But after a while I said, Look. I'll read them. I'll write a nice critique, give praise where it's due and constructive criticism to point someone in the right direction. But I'm not filling out numbers on a score sheet anymore.

Thanks for the fix, deb. It sounds much better.

Cindy, even with the slight structural issue, that's a gorgeous, gorgeous drabble.

Is the point of view consistent throughout? Score 1 to 5. That's a yes or no question in my mind. Is the internal conflict introduced early enough and is it clear enough? Score 1 to 5. What if it's introduced late for a good reason? What if it's not spelled out in capital letters right away for a reason?

Oh, man, how horrible. I would have probably zeroed on all of those. Conflict? I didn't even know what "Plainsong" was about until I'd written half the book - I just knew it wanted to get written.

Then again, I don't compete. I'm not big on "winning". Never saw the point; I just do what I do, and that includes my neverending jones to sit down with a group of people, and say "Once upon a time..."

Mind you, I am definitely not dissing contests. I just mean they're from an entirely zone from the one I personally inhabit.

Oooh! Just went back and read Cindy's slight rework. And it's gorgeouser!

FWIW, here's a fairly typical romance contest scoresheet: [link]

It's for the contest I failed to final in, though I haven't received my results yet. For the most part, I think the scoring criteria are valid, though there are some I'd like to reword. E.g., I'd change "Are all five senses utilized to portray emotion?" to "Does the writer use strong, evocative sensory details?" Because I know that somewhere out there is an overly literal, pedantic judge who's going to mark down a kick-ass piece of writing just because there was no good reason to use taste in that brief scene or scenes. I'd also change the weighting of the scores a bit--IMO those last two questions under "Overall Impression" should count for a lot more than 10 points, because when I'm in a bookstore reading the first few pages to determine whether I want to buy a book, I'm asking myself whether I'm intrigued enough to keep reading, not whether the writer has used all five senses or presented both internal and external conflict.

Is the internal conflict introduced early enough and is it clear enough? Score 1 to 5. What if it's introduced late for a good reason? What if it's not spelled out in capital letters right away for a reason? Shudder.

When I was entering Lucy's story in contests, I consistently got marked down for conflict. I ended up deciding they had a point--that story really was too damn subtle. But I'll be interested in seeing how the wip fares. It definitely has a lot more action and a faster-paced plot, and the obstacles keeping Jack and Anna apart are an order of magnitude greater than anything James and Lucy faced. But there's definitely a school of romance writing popular in judging circles that insists that the hero and heroine be in direct conflict with each other, and that the conflict must be spelled out right from the beginning. And that's just not what this particular story is about.

I'm definitely rethinking whether entering contests is a worthwhile strategy for my style of writing, though I'm withholding judgement until I've actually got the results from the three I entered this spring.

Bird In The Hand

"Nope. Spending the night is boyfriend stuff. And you don't want a boyfriend."

"Pfft." Her grimace was empty of emotion. "You know I'm not a girlfriend sort of a girl. Besides, you'd have to give up all your other women."

"She ... they ... I already did."

She didn't look up, or break her rhythm.

Hours later, he's searching for his scattered clothes, trying not to disturb her.

When he looks over, in the dim light, she's watching him opaquely, and holding his rumpled shirt tight to her body. She shakes her head.

"Don't leave."

(dying over ita's)

Oh, yes indeedy.

I love the complete tease of that "watching him opaquely." I love a good adverb and I get really pissed at adverb nazis; used properly, as you just did, they're stone cold gorgeous. I love that the word brought up multiple visuals in my head, mutiple possibilities, for that opaque-looking. Are her eyes clouded, is it dark, are her motives hidden, and on and on...

I love that you respect the reader enough to let her/him draw that picture in his/her own head.

edited for clarity: the adverbs are gorgeous, not the adverb-haters.