And, when I propose a change, I like to give the author two or three ways the
problem can be fixed, not because I want them to use any of them, but I want
the author to see how much room for change there actually is. Everyone has
to write their story their own way, so it's not useful for me to say do this
MY way. In the end, everyone has to fix it with their own creativity. I just
try to shine a little light on the process.
I just had a chance to visit with some of the WOTF judges at the Hollywood Awards.
They all agreed that they dislike stories which do not tie everthing up.
Martin L. Shoemaker wrote:My story opens with a mystery. At the end, parts of that mystery have been wrapped up; but even among those parts, some are only resolved by implication. And some have been wrapped up off stage, so the narrator has answers, but the reader doesn't. And some parts remain completely mysterious. This is a conscious decision: I want the story to be about a larger, more mysterious world than the narrator or the reader realizes, with more mysteries always around the corner.
But even before I finished it (okay, future tense -- WILL finish it, but I'm in the home stretch now), I sent a note to my First Reader saying the readers might hate me for my ending. And when I told him which BIG mystery is deliberately left unexplained, he answered, "You're right. I hate you now."
I don't care if he hates me for it. It is what it is, and I think this is the right ending for this story. But perhaps it means the contest is the wrong market for this story.
What matters isn't which mysteries are solved--or even if any of them are--but how the narrator(s) and/or PoV character(s) have changed because of what he/she/they have/has learned.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest