Ten Laws of Random Observations About Writing Contests

Having just completed coordinating the preliminary round of the Original Golden Opportunity contest, run by my local RWA chapter, I thought I'd try to come up with a list of ten commandments, no, laws no... more like random observations about writing contests.

Ahem....

1. The entrants with the most elaborate pseudonyms, or who go to the greatest lengths to use only their pseudonyms, are invariably the least experienced and will not do well in the contest. Clearly there are exceptions to this. And I really don't mean to mock. I think back to how choosing a pseudonym was pretty dang high on my priority list when I started writing, cough, seven years ago. Ah, what a naive fool I was. (Okay, now I am mocking, but I'm mocking myself, too, so that makes it okay. Right?)
   


2. The category that produces the most erratic scores and the most violent reactions from both entrants and judges is paranormal. I think it's partly because some of the premises are "out there" and not to everyone's taste. One person's "cool" or "dark" is another person's "ick" or "gross". But I also think there are a lot of moderately crazy people writing in that genre. (Me included.)


3. The judges who were the most keen to judge and were the most insistent that they'd be done on time, when you politely reminded them of the deadline, are the ones who disappear from the face of the planet the second the deadline arrives, never to be heard from again. A curse on you all!!!!
   


4. Some judges will clearly not have read a word of the judges' training. Some will have read it, but clearly not have understood much. (hopefully just a few of each)


5. Entrants (or judges) who don't know how to convert a file to .rtf, or put in a header, or save a file under a different filename, or attach a file to an e-mail, or use paypal, etc... Are likely not to be very experienced writers (or judges). Not that being technically adept and writing necessarily go hand in hand... but if you've had any experience as a writer, if you've ever submitted anything, if you've even exchanged pages with another writer for critique, you've already had to figure this shit out.
   


6. The finalists are, by in large, the most experienced, the most polite, the most thoughtful, and the most organized entrants in terms of dealing with the coordinator -- but some finalists turn into Diva Monsters expecting you to be at their beck and call 24/7 once they final, as if you don't have 25 other finalists revising their entries to deal with, too. Not to mention your own life to live. (No Diva Monsters yet this year! Knock on wood. That one was an observation from last year.)


7. Some people should think before they press send. Each year, I get a few e-mails from contestants who did not do well, who would've been so much better off if they'd taken a day to cool off before telling me how stupid our judges are...


8. Some people cannot follow instructions no matter how you word them. (Entrants and judges.)
   


9. Every year, some great entries fail to final... but, in general, most entries that final are worthy. (But invariably a one or two finalists receive terrible scores from the judge you personally think is the "most competent" of the three judges they were assigned.)
   
   And now for my potentially controversial Observation #10...


10. Judges closest to publication, either who've just sold or are on the cusp of getting that first contract, tend to be the harshest critics.
    I haven't done a scientific analysis of this. But when I started coordinating contests, and therefore reading a lot of score sheets, I started to take a harder look at my own scoring and how tough I was being at times. Here's my rough categorization of judges (totally, TOTALLY generalizing -- and if you judged a contest I coordinated, and think I mean you? I don't. Really.**)
    
    
    • The least experienced writers (on balance) give the highest scores. "Hey, this is as good as my stuff, or better, so it must be great!" Either that, or they mark everyone down for the same things--typically whatever lesson they've just mastered in their own writing--whether it's a problem in the entry or not. Frankly, I prefer these judges to the next type of judge.
    • Some writers, possibly new, possibly who've been at it for a while, but who either haven't worked very hard at their craft, or simply just don't get it, but THINK they know a lot... make a total mess of scoring. They call someone out for "telling" when the examples given sound like "showing" to me. They "correct" correct grammar. They mark entrants down for not describing how something smells on every page. They don't recognize when an entry's cool, or different, because it breaks some "rule" they think needs to be followed. They simply, IMHO, frak it all up.
      
    • Seasoned, multi-published authors tend to (usually) be the most fair and realistic. "This is such a cool idea, or such a strong voice, I need to encourage this writer, and give it a really high score," or "This was clean, well-written, and showed skill, but had no spark. I'll give it a good score, but not a top score", or "this poor writer is so clearly a beginner, I cannot crush them. I'll find something nice to say, give it a lowish but not mean score, and move on. Maybe give a few examples of problems and offer a few tips or good craft books, if I have time."
      
    • Then there are the judges right on the cusp of selling, the ones who are talented and skilled themselves and know enough to separate the great from the good from the ugly. But they might be frustrated they haven't sold yet, and/or are still stinging from bad critiques of their own work in contests. These judges, in my experience, can sometimes be kinda cruel.
      Observing this in other judges gave me pause. Made me realize I'd been guilty of that in the past. Made me work to be kinder, while still telling the truth, on the really weak entries. Made me decide that giving a score below 50% isn't necessary. Below 90% they aren't going to final in most contests, so why rub their nose in the dirt? (But I admit I still have trouble finding nice things to say about weak entries...)

Finally, while I know contests are imperfect and a bit of a crap shoot in terms of which judges you get assigned (and they'd only be completely fair if all entries in a category got the exact same judges, and that's simply not possible, and even then, entrants would be hostage to those judges' likes and dislikes)... Phew. Even, given all that, I have come to believe that contests mirror the publishing business better than most people think.

Generally, skilled writing and storytelling triumphs over the weak, but, just as in "real life", not always. It's all so subjective, and luck is involved. Again, just like subjectivity and luck affect "real life" publishing.

Ultimately, it all comes down to: did the judge (or editor) love what you wrote. And love is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder.


** I especially don't mean you, Bitch. Ignore this if you haven't seen 500 Days of Summer. If you have -- wasn't it great???