Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
I recently wrote a horror story involving a medium and submitted it to an anthology. The editor gave me some good feedback on weaknesses in the POV, and on mediumship terminology. Unfortunately the editor still isn't interested in using the story unless I make factual changes where I've used a bit of poetic licence - for example, in my story a sitter touches the medium who's in a trance, but apparently people aren't supposed to do that. I've decided to pull my submission and try the story elsewhere.
This is the first time I've had an editor insist on making characters believe as they should in a perfect world!
Comments
[quote=DeneBebbo]in my story a sitter touches the medium who's in a trance, but apparently people aren't supposed to do that.[/quote]
If the touch is true to character or a plot device why would it need changing?
My thoughts exactly. I believe the editor is a medium, and from what he/she said to me in an email the concern seems to be that someone might read my story and think it's a true representation of what goes on when you see a medium.
My mother is a medium and I've had a couple of stories published where I've taken a light-hearted view of their work. She hasn't been bothered about the accuracy, or lack of. She knows it's fiction.
I think the editor is out of order on many levels.
[quote= DeneBebbo]someone might read my story and think it's a true representation of what goes on when you see a medium.[/quote]
You're writing fiction, not an article - it shouldn't matter.
I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to publicly identify the publisher and editor of the anthology.
Yes, I mentioned in a whisper that if it was a medical fact then we'd expect it to be correct. But this is about how someone reacts - it's not something the medium does, it's what a sitter does in reaction.
There isn't a right or wrong way to react, we just do.
I think this a grey area. Even if the medium in my story was conducting her readings in an unusual way, who's to say that's wrong in the context of the story? Maybe the character is a misguided amateur and set herself up in business regardless of how mediumship is usually performed. It's only a short story and I didn't want to get into a lot of background detail. The one thing I did change in my story is some incorrect terminology.
There's no reason to assume you're right. I don't want to publicly state who the editor is.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that! :-D
It would be different if the point of the story was that she isn't a good medium - you can't explain away an inconsistency with something you have made up about what might be the case about her - your reader isn't going to do that, they aren't story-tellers, they are readers.
Quite - but to have it and have no mention if its inappropriateness would be wrong. You wouldn't have a bank robbery or a killing without reaction to it would you? Just mention it in your story with no repercussions or explanation or lead up, or after-effects?
Exactly. That's why it would be a good idea for DB to show a negative reaction in the story, as I mentioned. That's what I'd do. I wouldn't stop a character from touching a medium just because mediums don't like people doing that. But I would show consequences of that action, because that's logical; people not doing things just because people don't want them to isn't logical or realistic.
Of course I was raised well, so I'd respect the medium's request, but not everyone's going to do that in this imperfect world.
I never said there was no explanation for this aspect of the story. It involves a medium who becomes distressed while in a trance and a friend of the sitter goes to try and bring her out of it by shaking her. It may be something that sitters are told not to do, but how many of us have done something we're not supposed to? A factual point that was brought up by the editor is that sitters don't usually have someone accompanying them. Does that mean I have to take that character out of the story or construct a backstory about why this particular medium allowed it?
One of the editor's criticisms is that because of some supposed inaccuracies in my story about how mediums operate I'd be giving people the wrong idea. I could understand that if I'd written an article, but it's a story!! The reason I'm bewildered is that my story seemed to be rejected mainly because the editor just doesn't like the poetic licence I've used, and doesn't like the dramatisation I made of what he/she claims to be a normal happening.
Wouldn't the story then be more about the practice of mediumship than the drama, which in this case is a medium who eventually becomes possessed by a demon?
[quote=Baggy Books]I think the editor is out of order on many levels.[/quote]
[quote=Baggy Books]You're writing fiction, not an article - it shouldn't matter.[/quote]
Firstly, I admit that as someone as yet unpublished - except for the OWC anthology - I probably don't know what I'm talking about. However, one thing I decided when I first started writing 5 years ago is that I will never let any editor/publisher/or whatever, tell me to change a story. I agree with you DeneBebbo on you pulling your story and trying somewhere else. As Baggy has said also, if you're writing fiction, it shouldn't matter. Everyone knows that in fiction, anything can happen. If writers had to be 100% factual when writing fiction, then 99% of fiction would never be written, and science fiction wouldn't be written at all. Baggy's other comment that the editor is "out of order on many levels" is an understatement. I think that editor is wrong on every level.
If what I say here comes across as naive, then yes I admit it is, and I am, as I know extremely little about the world of publishing written work as yet. But if getting published means changing your work so that it bears no relation to what you have personally created, then I would rather just continue writing for my own pleasure so that no editor/publisher/or whatever, who doesn't know me can ever insist on anything.
It's reasonable to make some changes to a story, in this case there were some POV tweaks needed. But I wouldn't want to make changes which undermine some of the central drama of my story just to make it 100% factual - especially in a short story which involves a very non-factual demonic possession, and for a non-paying anthology!
Yes indeed I can understand some changes, as some may be necessary, but not merely to satisfy this person's apparent obsession with facts. It is your story, not his.
No, they don't. But they can. I've sat in on readings and 'enjoyed' a trance meditation with approximately 50 others. For the editor to mention that as a deemed inaccuracy is wrong.
There's no right or wrong to this subject. We're talking about a reaction by someone other than the medium. We're not suggesting that the medium does anything inappropriate that gives a bad impression on mediumship in general.
[quote= DeneBebbo]a non-paying anthology![/quote]
Ain't worth the worry - find a home that offers a little remuneration.
[quote=JohnWho63]If writers had to be 100% factual when writing fiction, then 99% of fiction would never be written[/quote]
Exactly.
Another point made by the editor is that I had it wrong when the medium asks the sitter who they want to contact. I already suspected that was wrong, but it worked best in the story. Yes, I could have made some changes but it felt like I'd be contorting the story just to be 100% factual, and it's not as if my story is meant to be an explanation of how mediumship works.
Maybe next time I'll write a story about a medium who uses cold reading techniques, and other chicanery, and finally gets his comeuppence for dishonesty. After all, there are mediums who do use chicanery!
Honestly would you happily read the story as it was, or would you just keep thinking 'but that wouldn't happen'? Wouldn't you rather it was changed so that it was either just the current document that was deleted or that if everything went then it was deliberately done by someone with some IT knowledge and that it took more than one keystroke?
You appear to have the basic facts correct, and that, as others have pointed out, is the important point. The other details are for you to add as you see fit to your own story and should not be subject to editorial manipulation.
"the concern seems to be that someone might read my story and think it's a true representation of what goes on when you see a medium" - that's about as useful as your editor suggesting that people who read James Bond books will believe that Fleming has painted a wholly accurate picture of how the British Intelligence Services function.
Giving feedback on POV, suggesting changes that might enhance the plotline etc - those ARE editorial functions. Telling you to change something because it doesn't fit with how an editor would like a medium to work - that's manipulation, not editing. If that's the calibre of editing being offered you'd be better off taking your work to someone professional who will look at your work objectively. Good luck with it.
Yep. And in Jurassic Park there's a computer running UNIX with a snazzy 3D graphical interface, very different to the rather mundane command line interface of real world UNIX :-)
I understand where you're coming from, but the difference is that mediumship is about human behaviour, so there's flexibility about how a medium might do their readings. Baggy Books has already said that some things in my story that the editor complained about does sometime happen.
Would you like to interrograte the Findus lasagne I have on this plate before me?
Indeed.
But even if they didn't, there are plenty of instances in films and books where seances, readings and trances have been given spin to make the event more sensational. Most of the events I've witnessed have barely raised a shrug, let alone a raised eyebrow.
Totally agree with PM. Unless it's fantasy, I think stories should be grounded in what is reality and the drama woven around this, otherwise you risk losing your reader - and let's face it, although Baggy has said sometimes some of the things you have written DO actually happen, it's quite clear from your responses that you didn't know what usually DOEs happen. Regardless of how rubbish the editor is, or whether it is sent to a paying or a non-paying source, everything in every story should at least be researched properly BEFORe you decide that you are going to change what really happens for dramatic effect - because then you have taken that decision with knowledge behind you and it is more likely to be a defendable one.
[quote=Libby]hat's about as useful as your editor suggesting that people who read James Bond books will believe that Fleming has painted a wholly accurate picture of how the British Intelligence Services function.[/quote]
Fleming would never be published nowadays, so I think this is a spurious argument.
Notwithstanding all that though, I'd look at it again and send it out somewhere else if you think it's good, considering BB thinks it could happen. She's in the know. (Actually, I find it quite comforting that not much happens usually in seances - it seems to suggest they aren't making up stuff...)
I did a bit of research beforehand, but admittedly not extensive research because I didn't think a story of this nature required it. The scene where the character does a reading is a relatively small, though dramatic, part of the story. It will be interesting to see if another editor accepts the story.
Having read the story earlier today, I'd be more concerned that the editor believed that what happened AFTER the reading was an accurate representation of mediumship.
I'd missed the fact that it was a non-paying anthology. Lee H is probably right - your editor is probably an amateur and it sounds as if they are trying to tailor your work to their personal perspective. Take on board anything constructive but maybe offer your story to someone less blinkered instead of wasting your time trying to get this editor to change their mind?
(Liz B - fashions in publishing change but regardless of whether or not Fleming would be published nowadays the fact remains that THE DEFINITION OF FICTION HAS NOT CHANGED. Sorry, I obviously did not make myself clear. :) )
I guess it depends who your audience is. If you want people who know nothing about mediums (media?) to read it, then what you've written probably isn't an issue. But don't expect those who do know something about it to let it go unchallenged.
HP-UX doesn't quite make it to 3d graphics, but it does provide graphics! Given that Jurassic Park was set in the not-too distant future when we've developed the ability to clone dinosaurs, it's not too difficult to believe that HP (or someone else) would have come up with a version of unix that used 3d graphics.
[quote=Phots Moll]DeneBebbo imagine I wrote a story where a character accidentally leant on a computer and managed to accidentally wipe the entire hard drive and all work ever done on it.[/quote]
Happened in Colin's Sandwich, a sitcom that starred Mel Smith. I said it was ridiculous as there is always a question along the lines of "Confirm that you want to delete", but the programme still got made! And it was funny.
True, but I've been using UNIX for over 25 years and in all that time the interface is still the trusty command line!
For those of us who know what we're doing, yes (would you believe I do my web design at home using vi?), but HP provide things like "File manager" to allow users to maker their unix screen look like a Windows screen.