An announcement, Darwin, and the list

 Announcement:

 

Speculative Mystery Iconoclast will be making its debut mid July 2008, not June 2008 as earlier stated. In addition, a decision has been made to let our publication go bi-annually (meaning every 6 months)i nstead of quarterly as was reported earlier. It was felt that the six month cycle (instead of the 3 month cycle) gave us more of an opportunity to work with authors (both selected and those not so lucky).

 

The shortlist for the premier issue of Speculative Mystery Iconoclast has been finalized. Ruthless Darwinian rules will be enforced to thin the herd until we’re left with the fittest stories!

 

Can’t wait! 

The scarcity of Why-dunnits in the slushpile

Our slushpile suggests that Why-dunnit is not as popular as the Who-dunnit or the How-dunnit. Although quite a few submissions have combined all three types of mysteries, the full why-question-centric tales are not forthcoming.

I guess many writers believe that if you already have the ‘who’ and ‘how’, then the ‘why’ (although important) is just not intriguing enough to be the focus of a story.

Not so, I say. The why-dunnit represents some interesting opportunities in terms of original plotting.

The mysteries in why-dunnits are linked to questions of:

• Motive (in crime mysteries); and

• Why an unexpected event has occurred (in non-crime mysteries).

Example:
When a crime is committed, and there are several witnesses and/or a mass of evidence identifying the guilty party (who) as well as the method used (how), the motive (why) could make for a great tale if:
The ‘who’ doesn’t make any sense – there may be better suspects or an apparent lack of motive.

Tip: The answer to the ‘why’ is often character-driven (i.e. what the characters want or need) or as a result of movement from the status quo to alternate state of affairs. Characterisation and setting play a role in this regard and may even be clues.

A note on speculative mysteries in general:
A writer may infuse speculative elements in the ‘who, how, or the why’ of a story. Some tales are successful because all three aspects are given a speculative treatment. In others, only one question relates to the speculative domain.

Keep writing and keep submitting!

When Red Herrings are added

A red herring is a ‘fake clue’ that leads the hero away from the true solution. Its purpose is to frustrate, confuse, and misdirect both the hero as well as the reader.  Variations of Red Herring:

• The discovery of motive, means, and opportunity of multiple characters;
• Physical evidence with multiple interpretations. For example, objects founds at a crime scene may lead to false assumptions (on the part of the sleuth as well as the reader);
• The actual location of the crime scene may lead the reader down the wrong path;
• Dialogue may spark a hunch that leads the reader away from the truth. Why did character x say that?
• In Speculative Mystery stories prior knowledge (e.g. scientific fact, beliefs of the realm, known occurrences) presented to the reader may have a similar effect.
• In scientific mysteries, it is helpful to remember that people are quite willing to believe anecdotal evidence (e.g. stories / experiences of a few individuals) when there is a lack of genuine evidence supporting an alternative theory. The writer may play with this phenomenon.

 It’s not always necessary to use red herrings in short stories, but if you do you should place them carefully. There should be plausible explanations for the presence of the false clue. It should be noted that these ‘clues’ tend to lengthen the story, because the hero has tofollow up on it and then discover that it doesn’t lead to the ‘who, why, or the how’ of the mystery. “Darn, back to square one!” For that reason, the writer should be wary of planting too many red herrings. Above all, even when dealing with red herrings (devices designed to mislead), play fair with the reader. 

Keep writing, keep them guessing, and keep submitting!

Deriving ‘rules’ from what we’re NOT about…

One of the first posts I wrote for this blog dealt with Speculative Mystery rules and focused on the rules for the Mystery genre developed by the Detection Club. Beyond those rules, a rival set was developed and outlined by S.S. Van Dyne (a.k.a. Willard Huntington Wright) in an article called Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories in 1928. 

Of the twenty rules, many are reasonable, others seem outdated, while still others may serve as so-called ‘anti-rules’ for Speculative Mystery fiction. Two rules come to mind in this regard: 

Rule 8: The problem of the crime must be solved by strictly naturalistic means. Such methods for learning the truth as slate-writing, Ouija-boards, mind-reading, spiritualistic séances, crystal-gazing, and the like, are taboo. A reader has a chance when matching his wits with a rationalistic detective, but if he must compete with the world of spirits and go chasing about the fourth dimension of metaphysics, he is defeated ab initio.  

Rule 14: The method of murder, and the means of detecting it, must be rational and scientific. That is to say, pseudo-science and purely imaginative and speculative devices are not to be tolerated in the roman policier. Once an author soars into the realm of fantasy, in the Jules Verne manner, he is outside the bounds of detective fiction, cavorting in the uncharted reaches of adventure. 

Of course, Speculative Mystery is a different genre than mundane Mystery. Secondly, Van Dyne is referring to Crime / Detective fiction only. Also, as the writing guidelines of Speculative Mystery Iconoclast state, our conception of Mystery is not limited to the Crime genre. 

Therefore, we reject half of Rule 8 – the half pertaining to strictly naturalistic means. However, we agree that the reader should have an opportunity to match wits with the detective or hero protagonist (at least to some degree). 

Where Speculative Mystery is concerned, Rule 14 should be rejected for the most part. However, just because imaginative and speculative elements are introduced, it doesn’t preclude any rationality or scientific grounding from being applied to detection.      

If Speculative Mystery Iconoclast were to compose rules of its own, said rules would read something like this:           

The problem of the crime may be solved by any means necessary. Such methods for learning the truth as slate-writing, Ouija-boards, mind-reading, spiritualistic séances, crystal-gazing, and the like, may be used. However, these methods are best when used in original, entertaining ways and where possible to only illuminate part of the mystery. The protagonist hero should consider the above devices as ‘sources of information’ and not a replacement for detection. 

The method of crime (or oddity), and the means of detecting it, may be either rational, wholly speculative, or both. Speculative elements from Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror often posses an internal logic that is analogous to rational science. This internal logic (the nuts and bolts of how these elements work) is governed by laws created by writer. However, even if they didn’t, it might be entertaining to see these collide with logical detection methods employed by police officers, private eyes, and sleuths both amateur and professional. 

So ends the sermon. 

Keep writing and keep submitting!

Calling all Horror writers!

In my last post, I highlighted the scarcity of Horror crossover stories in the slush pile. So, during this blog-witching quarter of an hour, I’ll discuss Speculative Mystery Iconoclast’s Horror Mystery crossover preferences.

There are a myriad of Horror categories and a few different perspectives on each. However, when you read Horror / Mystery and Science Fiction / Horror / Mystery in our submission guidelines, the Horror we refer to is ‘Supernatural Horror’. In Supernatural Horror, you’ll encounter ghosts, vampires, demons, werewolves, occult forces, and other things that go bump in the night. This category is a lot broader than most people think, though.

Note: I’ve edited the guidelines to make the above clarification more explicit.

Supernatural Horror writers actually have an advantage when writing crossover mystery tales, because their genre lends itself to characters asking questions (mostly, as a result of experiencing something weird or just curiosity about people or place).

Some pointers:

1] Build and maintain suspense throughout the story.

2] Create and maintain suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader – make them believe in your setting, characters, and conflict. Mix and/or juxtapose the natural and the supernatural.

3] Never drop the pace of story for any prolonged stretch of time. Don’t feel the need to add in a really boring bit where nothing happens just to make the story longer.

4] Be original. Don’t be predictable. Avoid clichés. For example, recently, the movie ‘Thirty days of night’ dispensed with many modern vampire clichés: The mysterious Dracula-esque vampire; the vampire nobility (ala Anne Rice); and the ultra-hip vampire (from the Blade movies). Instead, the vampires featured onscreen reminded me of Hyenas while feeding – animalistic. [There is a short list of horror clichés at the bottom of this post.]

5] Avoid excessive gore. Every drop of blood needs to be motivated (yet not necessarily committed to page). Yes, this sounds really weird after mentioning ‘Thirty days of night’, but less is really more.

6] Remember, Horror Mystery crossover stories are still mysteries. So, don’t hide or withhold any information from the reader. This goes double if you intend withholding to set up a twist ending. That would be an abrupt twist ending. If you want to try such an ending, try to develop an organic twist ending that flows from the story.

7] Don’t give the ending away midway through the story.  The telegraph went out of style nearly a century ago.    

8] The golden rule: Be entertaining. Don’t let the writing get in the way of the plot. Avoid too much description (of things that aren’t remotely relevant). Be concise. Don’t draw out the story unnecessarily.   

Additional horror clichés:

• Potential victim of a serial killer turns out to be a vampire.

• All the horror was simply a dream. Probably something both the protagonist and the writer ate.
• All the horror was simply a manifestation of the narrator’s mental problems.
• The narrator turns out to be dead (and the writer chooses to reveal this at the end).

This list goes on longer than I’d like this blog post to be. What’s that noise coming from the cellar? I’d better go investigate - unarmed and alone…

As always, keep writing and keep submitting!

Slush Pile Stats Reprt #2

Hi, guys.  Here are Speculative Mystery Iconoclast issue #1’s slush pile percentages at the time of writing this post:

Science Fiction / Mystery = 22.2%

Horror / Mystery = 1.2%

Fantasy / Mystery = 33.3%

Dark Fantasy / Mystery = 4.3%

Science Fiction / Horror / Mystery = 1.2%

Science Fiction / Fantasy / Mystery = 1.5%

Dark Fantasy / Science Fiction / Mystery = 3.1%

Iconoclastic Speculative Fiction = 33.3%

Missed the mark (Did not read or simply ignored the guidelines) = 0%

Please note: Stories rejected at the time of writing this post are not counted. The percentages thus far have turned up a few surprises, namely the low submission percentage for Horror / Mystery (1.2%). For some reason, I expected more supernatural tales to grace my mailbox.

I’m gladdened by that the Science Fiction scribes have upped their submissions. I was beginning to think they thought the zine’s name sounded “too Fantasy” or “too [insert any genre other than SF].

Well, at least, people are reading the guidelines before they send their work – Missed the mark (0%). Yay!

Keep writing and keep submitting!

Slush Pile Stats Report #1

As promised, here are Speculative Mystery Iconoclast issue #1’s slush pile percentages at the time of writing this post:

Science Fiction / Mystery = 4.8%

Horror / Mystery = 2.7%

Fantasy / Mystery = 28.6%

Dark Fantasy / Mystery = 4.4%

Science Fiction / Horror / Mystery = 3%

Science Fiction / Fantasy / Mystery = 3.4%

Dark Fantasy / Science Fiction / Mystery = 4%

Iconoclastic Speculative Fiction = 42.9%

Missed the mark (Did not read or simply ignored the guidelines) = 6.2%

The percentages thus far have turned out as expected except for a few surprises, namely the submission percentages for Science Fiction / Mystery (4.8%) and Horror / Mystery (2.7%). Both are low in comparison with Fantasy / Mystery (28.6%).

The first batch of rejections and hold responses will be sent to authors soon. So, in light of that looming event, I thought that I’d reveal a small portion of the process of slush pile reading. Think of it as footnote in my ‘Book of Rejectomancy and Acceptomancy’ that you may or may not find useful.

Simplified (it’s not just two things - can’t stress this enough), evaluation of a story from the slush pile comes down to this ratio:

30 % Writing: 70% Plot

What does this wholly nonmathematical ratio mean? Well, it means that Plot/Story (and many other factors such as characterization, etc.) accounts for 70 % of my ‘accept / hold / reject’ decision making, BUT – but but but – Writing’s 30 % is the first thing I look for in a story.

[Note: By ‘Writing’ I don’t mean a specific style or stylistic sophistication – I appreciate a wide range of writing styles from minimalist to flowery prose and everything in between...In this context, ‘writing’ refers to competence, coherence, and whether the story achieves what the writer intended...]

Sorry, got a little sidetracked there! The point I’m trying to make is that ‘30% Writing’ is the first part of the ratio for a reason – it’s the gatekeeper factor of slush reading.

Keep writing and keep submitting!

Speculative Mystery Iconoclast – Updated submission windows

Due to some external factors as well as queries from several authors (about 20 odd more than I expected), I’ve decided to extend the submission window for issue #1 of Speculative Mystery Iconoclast as follows: 

Submission windows:

For the June issue (#1): 20 December 2007 to 30 April 2008

For the September issue (#2): 1 June 2008 to 31 July 2008

For the December issue (#3): 1 September 2008 to 31 October 2008

For the March issue (#4): 1 December 2008 to 31 January 2009 

Of course, this means Issue #1 will be out in mid June instead of March. The Submissions Guidelines page has already been updated with these changes. Note: these changes will not affect the status of stories already submitted or our response time.  You’ll still know if you’ve made the hold folder or have been rejected within the stated time. Understandably, the Table of Contents for issue #1 will take a while longer. 

As always, keep writing and keep submitting!

Watch this space!

For those who are on the verge of submitting short stories to Speculative Mystery Iconoclast, I will be post regular/irregular Slush Pile Stats to help submitters get the inside track on what I’ve received in terms of submissions.

Some writers might find this info useful. Generally, these posts will take the form of:

Science Fiction / Mystery = %

Horror / Mystery = %

Fantasy / Mystery = %

Dark Fantasy / Mystery = %

Science Fiction / Horror / Mystery = %

Science Fiction / Fantasy / Mystery = %

Dark Fantasy / Science Fiction / Mystery = %

Iconoclastic Speculative Fiction = %

There might also be some specific notes on popular trope submissions or stories that I haven’t seen. 

Of course, I’m not saying only send a type of story that hasn’t appeared in the slush pile up until that point in time, but use own judgement…

Keep writing and submitting!

Why does TV get Speculative Fiction right more often than Film?

JB Dryden made the comment that television produces more a consistent quality of Speculative fiction than film. That got me asking myself: “why?”

JB went on to mention the tendency of film to grab the nearest Specfic novel as the basis of their projects. Television does the same on occasion, but with a slight difference:

• TV tends to use the book as a loose basis for the show’s pilot while movies tend to follow the book more closely. Filmmakers often worry about how the book’s fan base will react when Character X doesn’t throw his hat on the table as he does on Page 523 of the novel. TV creators often add elements (e.g. additional characters) to the mix and don’t worry so much about the book fans.

Another point to consider is that TV has it own original Speculative shows that are not based on any books. These shows have produced trends of their own. A few years back, some television critics were discussing shows like Lost, Heroes, and The 4400, to name a few. Well, actually, it was much less of a discussion and more of a shredding and the crux of it went something like this:

These shows won’t ever work, because:

• There are too many characters;

• There are too many divergent storylines that don’t seem to have anything do to with each other (in the first few episodes).

Obviously, these critics were wrong, because not only have these shows survived but the number of Specfic shows with similar “problems” has increased during the last couple of years.

However, the success of these “problems” tells us that TV writers (and creators) have realised that:

1. You can’t underestimate your audience’s intelligence or their ability to process a large amounts of diverse (and/or incomplete) information (as would be the case with too many characters and too many storylines);

2. Specfic viewers are always looking for something different.

I think the above lessens aren’t just for Movie writers, but for novel and short fiction writers as well.