Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November 4th, 2009

 Yesterday, I re-read the comments from Editor Danielle on my short story, “Weathermaker.” Yikes! There were suggestions, questions & changes galore. Now, comes the tough part: Do I find a way to solve all the problems pointed out by this editor in the 2 weeks for re-write she has given me & re-submit the story, or do I leave “Weathermaker” as is & send it elsewhere?

So here are my choices: 1) Easy answer: leave it as is & send story elsewhere. 2) Some work answer: make a few changes & send story elsewhere. 3) Lots of work with no promise of publication: make the changes, lengthen the story, explore areas of the narrative that are just hinted at, delete areas of the story that are not necessary for the forward movement of plot, make the characters deeper, etc.

If the writer respects the editor (and I do), then the choice she makes says a lot about what she values. #1 is for the writer who’d rather see a work of lesser quality published just to be published. #2 is for the writer who’s willing to put in some effort to improve her writing, but is still publication driven. #3 is for the writer who’s committed to putting her best writing on the editor’s desk, and hopefully, in print.

Which did I choose? #3 – While after days of rewriting & revising, the resulting version of “Weathermaker” might not make it into this anthology, the story will be the best one I can write at the moment. And the resulting tale should have a better chance of publication elsewhere. So — Thank you, Editor Danielle for challenging me to write a better story!

Update: The finished story can be read in The Greener Forest.

Read Full Post »