Lots going on and it all seems to be happening through email.  I’ve gotten about fifteen legitimate emails today.  A couple from WotF (which I perpetuated more of by being an incompetent replier), one from Clarion West (just clearing up an application issue, no real news or anything), several asking advice, and some family emails regarding funeral arrangements for my great uncle.  I’m not used to that kind of attention.  Sometimes I wait weeks for an email from anyone other than Amazon or PayPal.

Yesterday I finally got my copies of Beyond Centauri with my story “Brother Goo” in it.  It’s a nice small press magazine with fiction aimed at kids 8-18.  That’s a wide range and it’s tough to hit.  I’m very happy with the magazine and “Brother Goo” fits right in.  It’s basically K-Pax for kids.  I can’t wait to read the rest of the issue.

Still waiting on verdicts for several submissions.  Weird Tales is over their advertised response time but still under their Duotrope average reported time.  Of course Anne VanderMeer is their editor and she’s part of the Clarion selection committee as part of the anchor leg duo (with husband Jeff), so I won’t complain much.  Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine has never taken this long to look at my slush story, either.  Things get slow sometimes and I of all people understand.  I have a couple other pieces out and waiting.  Waiting is the toughest part of writing.

I recently discovered that a significant online source of resource links for Clarion and other workshops has vanished from the web. Unhappy. So I have set about filling in the gap a little.

I’m not thrilled with my first attempt — the design feels chunky and clumsy.  There was a poor translation between my original file and the final result.  I may have to build it from the bottom up in html to get WordPress to accept what I want. It’ll be good practice; I haven’t used that much raw code in years.

But version 1.0 of my links page is available here.

It is 1:36 local time, finally time for bed.  My story (“Poison Inside the Walls”) took me hostage and refused to let me sleep untilI completed a draft.  It’s a shade shorter (a few hundred fewer words anyway) and quite a bit tighter.  There is still a story angle I wanted to fit in, but I couldn’t squeeze it.  Maybe I’ll dream about it.

Pleasant dreams.

I’m back to one of the topics that I mentioned at the very beginning of my blog: the pen name.  Sometimes I wonder if the blandness of my name gets in the way of my success.  Sure, a story should sell itself.  But who is going to read my story and remember my name to look for more of my stuff?  Scott W. Baker?  It even sounds a little like George W. Bush.  Not cool.

Online I’m Oso.  Many of you might only know me as Oso or have to make the connection between my real name and my handle.  Would it be so bad to be Oso Baker?  I think I need to decide soon, before I start making career-launching sales (like placing in WotF or something).  

There are problems with the plan.  I do have some previously published work, but most of it is obscure and hard to find (if not impossible).  But there’s at least one other Scott Baker out there writing speculative fiction (vampire stuff, I think).  I don’t want to be mistaken for him (hence the W).  

Anyone out there use a pen name?  Abandon an old pen name?  Have an opinion about pen names? 

For more about my pen name dilemma, see my very first post.

After seeing references to it pop up all over the place recently, I finally joined the sff online writing workshop (OWW).  First month is free so I intend to poke around, do some reviews, and get a feel for the place before shelling out $49 for the year.  Assuming the the reviews I get are helpful, I’ll be happy to pay.

I’ve been a Critter (critters.org) for a long time so the critiquing game is not new to me.  Why the switch?  A few reasons:

• Many writers who are just above my current status herald OWW.
• There are numerous professionals that are reportedly active there.
• People paying for criticism are likely to be both more qualified to give it and more likely to benefit from it.
• I felt like 9 out of 10 critiques I was getting at Critters were little more than grammar police or writers looking for a reason to not like a piece (despite not offering reasonable advice on improvement).
• 19 out of 20 stories I read there were very weak.  If I read too many, I found my own prose slipping.
• While reviews are necessary both places, they aren’t time sensitive at OWW like they are at Critters.  I can take a couple months off from reviews and not have to do a ton to catch back up.

What I’m going to be looking for is a signifcant upgrade in the quality of the critiques.  Sure, I want to know if I use the word “leach” fifty times when “leech” would have been more accurate (yes, I did it and Critters caught it), but I’m looking for advice on something beyond the surface.  What is going to stop this story from selling?  Why isn’t this character likeable?

Too often at Critters I would read a critique and think “is that it?”  I was a beginner once and I reread some of the critiques I wrote with a frown. It deeply resembles those 9 of 10 critiques I didn’t really find beneficial.  I’m not looking for advice from beginners anymore.  I want to be on the low end of the talent in the group.

Sure, Critters has pro members.  When I go pro [knocks on wood], I may go back to offer my insights to beginners.  But the pros are few and far betwixt; some of the ones I discovered there were not all that.

So I’m giving OWW a try.  Advice from the experienced is appreciated.  I’ll post something there soon, but I think I’ll start by reading other members’ work and offering my own insights first.  Now I just need to pull in at least $50 a year writing to offset the cost.  I’ve only had one year so far where I made this, but my production is way up and the workshop should help me that much more.

Critters is still a fine program for writers of different levels, especially on the side of critiquing the work of others.  My post about how to get the most out of Critters is linked to at the top right of this page (sidebar).

A while back (like here), I set a goal to have five stories under consideration all at once.  I managed that today as part of another goal (set yeaterday, not bothering to link) to get my contest entry out to CoolStuff4Writers.com.  No, that’s not technically a story submission, but the scene is definitely a stand-alone story with a bit of a cliffhanger ending.  I’ll try to get another one out there soon — maybe as early as Tuesday — to make me feel better about the whole thing.  Anyway, here’s what’s out there:

I am just shameless enough to use my blog for this.  Maybe someone can help me out.  I knowthere are a few competent writers out there reading my blog (no names so I don’t put anyone on the spot or leave anyone out) and I am looking for a favor.  First, some background.

I stumbled across a contest at coolstuff4writers.com that challenges writers to write a scene using only dialogue.  I sat down and started playing with it.  I started out with some detective and lieutenant talking about a perp and bored myself sufficiently to delete the whole thing and start over.

I’m much happier with what I have now.  It’s more than a scene; it’s a one-scene story…I think.  It takes place over the phone and I really felt the need for a line of explanation as to who hung up.  The contest (which I haven’t conclusively decided to enter) seems to prohibit even that much.  I think I managed to end things (a bit of a dangling ending, but that works sometimes), I just want some feedback.

I guess what I’m (shamelessly) asking is: anyone got time to skim a 1200-word story just to let me know if it has an ending?  Let me know and I’ll send you a copy.  Other commentary would be welcome, but the ending is mainly what I’m looking for.

Normally I’d take it to Critters or maybe Baen’s Bar, but it’s not technically a “ready” story.  That and the contest has a deadline.  I’d be happy to offer a reciprocal critique to any takers.  No pressure though; I know how my schedule gets.  Just thought I’d ask.

-Oso

More of my planning for the Clarion reality show, this one based off a website for pitching reality shows to producers. (It’s from a phase where I was one of those writers that didn’t write much.) Enjoy.
____________________________________

1. Title: Every writer knows the importance of title, but the options here are considerable. Anything from “Sci-Fi Writer” to “Who Wants to Be The Next Stephen King?” (or whoever)
2. Station: That’s easy: Sci-Fi Channel [sic]. How many science fiction fans envision themselves as writers? How many of them are watching the channel anyway? Or at least skim past it periodically on the guide. There are other channels that could work (PBS, Fox Reality), but they don’t carry the same audience. It could be web-based pretty easily, but that’s probably plan B.
3. Star Power: If it can make people tune in for ballroom dancing, it can do anything. While I don’t expect James Earl Jones or Harrison Ford, a drop-in from George Takei could be fun. Of course the real weight would come from authors. Household names would be best – writers that viewers would tune in (or at least Tivo) to see – but any writer with enough credits to elicit a two-minute bio would fit nicely. We’re talking Hugo winners, SFWA officers, anyone with a popular series, anyone with a story-turned-movie, or just folks with impressive resumes. Most guest instructors can expect to be Googled before and after broadcast.
4. Characters: Who’s going to participate in this three-ring workshop? Most potential viewers can be considered potential applicants. A workshop run by the Sci-Fi Channel will carry whatever credibility the cameras might detract. [Oops, that’s SyFy now…so maybe not.] I’m working under the theory that sponsors will pick up the tab for venue, instructors, and photocopies, so every Clarion Dreamer who claims the money excuse is a likely candidate. The selection process would be as long and arduous as any editing task in the world, but slush readers can be found. The show could even include interviews with the best and worst applicants (a bit like Idol auditions) or snippets of video from applicants (which many reality shows use to select their finalists). Read some bad lines, have an improv troupe act out some rotten scenes, and generally insult the hard-working writers who bared their hearts and souls in their writing samples. That might be too mean…or just good television. I do think there should be a personality component to the selection process as well as a writing component. We do want people to watch, don’t we?
5. Conflict: From all I’ve heard/read/dreamt about Clarion and its ilk, conflict will arise. One student gets singled out from the clique. Everyone hates Brenda’s story which she loves like it’s a kitten. The entire class unites against the instructor(s) for being too hard on them. The student who also teaches creative writing undermines the instructors by offering conflicting advice. The stress of writing and rewriting and reading and critiquing and not sleeping and aaaggh! Neighbors protesting the class’s inane (we’re all inane, especially in groups) behavior. Parents missing their kids. Wives missing their husbands. Students hating writing exercises. Week’s new instructor struggling to fit in with a tight-knit group. Hey, people watched The Real World for years, and all they did was live together to create drama. That’s going on, too.
6. Comedy: Has there ever been a Clarion without a watergun reenactment of Normandy? Have you ever seen a writer react to an unruly character three hours before a deadline? Ever seen twelve nerds (yeah, I said it) get together without laughing (outside a chess tournament)? The director and producers will surely have their choice of odd conversations, frantic adult competition, and rambling gibberish to choose from.
7. Viewer Empathy: Every good reality show has its viewers saying “I could do that,” or “I wish I could do that,” or “I’m glad that’s not me.” In that, this show is probably closer to The Apprentice than to any other reality show. The viewers want to envision themselves in that role, whether they could cut it or not. I suspect that every Apprentice contestant moved on to successful careers after the show. That’s our goal here.
8. Viewer Participation: Involve your viewer. How can we do that? Have them download stories and critique along with the show. Offer bonus footage on the net of real critique sessions. Sell the writers’ best (or worst) work in an anthology at season’s end. While I’m sure there is a way to build a voting system into the show, I doubt it would be necessary.
9. Winner: Let’s face it, the best reality shows have a winner at the end. The winner might be the first to finish the race, the person with the most votes, the person selected by the judge(s), the person hired for the job, the one who ate the most jellyfish, or the person least hated by competitors. Victory could take the form of a feature story in a magazine (or on scifi.com?), an agent, money, or a book deal. This winner can be chosen by faculty, participants, viewers/readers, or any combination of the above.
10. Concept Flexibility: How many times has your favorite reality show received an overhaul between seasons? Voting on So You Think You Can Dance? did, as did Dancing with the Stars. The Mole suddenly started using celebrities. American Idol completely altered its final selection process. Although the Milford-model is fairly specific in its needs, I doubt any Clarion has been identical to any other. I doubt Clarion West and Odyssey follow the same flow chart. I know the professionals of the Milford Conferences carried on differently than a room full of novices would. Changes are inevitable. Besides, why does it just have to be short stories? Next year could be screenwriters or comic artists.