10-12-02 @ 2:26 am EDT

I'm will always be of the mind that most of my writing is technically good--as I've said before, I can pick out typos/errors I would never commit in most of the items I read around here, and that's not being bigheaded, it's the truth--but once more I guess the subject matter/execution of my writing aren't as good as I like to think.

I've been entering a lot of contests lately and I never win them...I got third place in one recently, and I always felt that was one of my best stories. I worked so hard on it, and I was so proud of it...so much for pride in oneself. For my most recent one, the results so far aren't encouraging. A 4.5, yes...but not a five. And it got a 4 yesterday WITH NO COMMENT. (Somebody must be BLIND to have done that. Not to have rated it a four...but to have NOT LEFT A COMMENT when it specifically ASKS for one.)

A four? I know that's a good rating. But it's good with no perks, no pluses. It says, "This is good, but you could have done SO much better. It was tolerable, but it didn't move me." And sitting and looking at it, I have no IDEA what I could have done better. Aside from when I post things first and proofread them later (and this story HAS been proofread), I try to make certain they're as perfect as I can make them before I post them. So ESPECIALLY WHEN SOMEBODY DOESN'T COMMENT ON THEM, I have no idea what to do to make them better. I had honestly thought they WERE the best I could do.

And I hate to be petty, but it seems that whenever I do look at all the other winners and such in contests I've entered...I believe that THEY could have done a lot better. I really hate to sound so vain and full of myself here, but I know I do. I stare at the winners and often wonder HOW they won and I didn't. Most times they have errors I would never have allowed to pass in my own writing. This is why I think there is more emphasis placed on ideas than on actual strength of writing.

I myself, in my reviews, try to place stronger emphasis on strength and accuracy of writing, because of course I can't be interested in all the subjects I'm reading about. Whether I'm interested in a subject or not and whether I find an item boring are two different things. "Boring" is when ANY subject has been treated poorly in the writing, so that I cannot maintain interest. The other is when it's just a subject not to my liking, however well the person wrote about it. (I guess that there is next to NOBODY on this site who really cares about Ojibwa and Egyptian mythology, based on the ratings and comments I generally receive.)

Knowing that I won't be interested in everything, I thus place stronger emphasis on how the person pulled the writing off. If they did a good job technically, I rate higher. And I TELL THEM SO.

I seem to be the only one who does this. As most of my fiction, since it deals with themes nobody else is much interested in (mythology, e. g.), either goes unrated, or gets "okay" ratings. (Remember back when "Kebehut," which took a HUGE amount of time and effort to write, got a three...and more recently I got a three rating on a story I thought I did a good job on because the reader wasn't interested in the subject matter. Honest to God, they said, "It's good but I'm not really interested in this subject." I'm glad they commented, but honestly, WHY READ IT if it's so boring that the technical skills of the writer are overlooked in the rating? Didn't my spelling, grammar, dialogue, characterization, setting, description, conflict, etc., count for anything?)

That's what makes me angry about the contests, and reader preferences...they don't seem to care about spelling and grammar and such, etc. Just the general idea of a story. I myself do not agree with this. I will not read an item that has such lousy technical skill that it distracts me. Admittedly, neither will I often read something well written with a subject that bores me, but I WILL at least rate it fairly based on the skills of the writer. (I. e., I will NEVER poorly or even average rate an item about an uninteresting subject, so long as the writer did a good job of writing about it, and let their passion for the subject shine through.) But am I the only one who does this? Based on the results of contests, it seems I am. Because I keep trying so damn hard only to be told over and over again, "This is okay but it wasn't my cup of tea. I don't really care for this kind of writing." They don't say a word about whether it was WELL WRITTEN technically or not (can you find a single typo or comma splice?--if so, PLEASE point them out, I really don't mind!--but I assure you, you won't find a LOT of them!)...they just say that the subject bores them. And whether I spelled things correctly or had good dialogue doesn't matter in their book, if the subject didn't pique their interest.

(I assure you, you will see more books on the market that have boring subject matter yet excellent technical skills than the other way around. Why else does this site have a spellchecker? Why else are we told to proofread? Why else do publishers insist on perfect formatting on submission? Am I the only one who cares about that?)

I can't think of any other way to put or clarify this without repeating myself endlessly (which I know I already have). I wish that I were not the only one who puts emphasis on ideas AND on the execution and the technical details. I KNOW my writing is very nearly technically perfect! (Yes, it has a few flaws--but not as many as many other, more highly rated and beloved works and CONTEST WINNERS I've seen here.) Which is why the fault must lie in the subjects I spend my time writing about, the things that I CARE enough about to write about with any passion. Which is why they must sit there unrated and practically unread for weeks unless I beg somebody to read them. Which is why the items filled with errors and sloppy execution get all the attention and wins in contests, and mine get third place or runner-up, if anything.

Not all emphasis should be placed on technical ability. Granted. You can write the best stuff in the world with all the commas in the right places, but if it's bland as hell, it's not going to win any attention or return readers. AND you should at least try to appeal to the common in everyone with a subject that at least some of them can relate to. But that still doesn't clear it up for me. I THOUGHT my writing was interesting...with drama and conflict and everything...I TRIED to make it appeal to the common in everyone...myths have universal themes, and I spend literally pages on characterization just so readers can more easily empathize with them. I TRY TO DO EVERYTHING THE BEST I CAN. Which is why with each reader who turns away in boredom or rates "okay" or passes a story of mine over for a prize...I just can't understand what I'm doing wrong.

A very, very few people have offered me suggestions on my writing, but based on what I've seen wrong with the winners and the stories that get all the attention around here...what am *I* doing that's any worse than what THEY'RE doing? Or have I just been fooling myself all this time thinking that my writing was any good at all?

Currently, with each turn-down for a prize or "okay but not excellent" rating, I sit and think to myself, "They just must not like mythology. If it were a subject they liked, I would have won/gotten a higher rating." But that excuse only worked for so long. People SAY they like mythology, and other stories in a similar vein are more popular...so there must be something seriously flawed about the way I write. But people either don't know what it is or don't want to tell me. And it's obvious that I can't tell what it is either...unless like I said I've just been deluding myself for years.