BBC Who Books Guidelines
Mark Phippen
guidelines for the Doctor Who range to my site.
Find it at: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~mark.phippen/guidelines.html
Best,
Mark
kevin white
Mark Phippen wrote in message <7i9s1a$ag1$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>...
On the whole it's a pity more author's haven't stuck to them in the past.
"Don't just tack on a character called 'the Doctor' to your science-fiction
idea - it always shows! "
"Many excellent books have hinged on psychic powers, but they are all too
often used as devices of convenience."
"Explaining the ancestry of the Doctor Please don't do this. He is a being
of mystery and should stay that way. Leave out his family members too - no
grans, dads or maiden aunts."
Kevin.
Stephen Graves
kevin white wrote in message <7ibqr8$pto$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Yes, but the published authors are allowed to get away with almost anything;
can you imagine the look on Steve Cole's face if, say, I had pitched The
Infinity Doctors to the BBC? Which means that first-time writers are going
to be forced to churn out faceless, TV-style stories with old Doctors, like
Last Man Running, before they're allowed to join the exclusive gentlemens'
club that is the Eighth Doctor Mailing List...
It's rather like Shakespeare being allowed not to spell proper-like, and
inventing his own words, simply because he's *Shakespeare* and he can do
what he likes. If an English student did something similar, the examiner
would throw his work out of the window.
SG
SG
Paul Rhodes
>It's rather like Shakespeare being allowed not to spell proper-like, and
>inventing his own words, simply because he's *Shakespeare* and he can do
>what he likes.
Nobody had to spell proper-like when Shakespeare was writing. That's
because of when he lived, not who he was.
Paul
Kate Orman
Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>Yes, but the published authors are allowed to get away with almost anything;
>can you imagine the look on Steve Cole's face if, say, I had pitched The
>Infinity Doctors to the BBC? Which means that first-time writers are going
>to be forced to churn out faceless, TV-style stories with old Doctors, like
>Last Man Running, before they're allowed to join the exclusive gentlemens'
>club that is the Eighth Doctor Mailing List...
Not that you're jealous, or anything. :-)
"Last Man Running" is the wrong book to use as an example; it was written
by a long-established "Doctor Who" author, Chris Boucher.
Nothing in the guidelines "forces" you to "churn out" a "faceless,
TV-style story" for the Past Doctor Adventures. In fact, the guidelines
tell you *not* to do this:
"Remember your medium! A novel and a television show/film are obviously
different things, so think big! Think of what you can do in a novel that
you couldn't pull off on screen."
Besides, a good PDA submission might get you invited to pitch for the
EDAs.
>It's rather like Shakespeare being allowed not to spell proper-like, and
>inventing his own words, simply because he's *Shakespeare* and he can do
>what he likes. If an English student did something similar, the examiner
>would throw his work out of the window.
Putting aside the fact that Will wrote before the dictionary was invented,
this is actually a good analogy (if rather too flattering to the Doctor
Who authors :-). The guidelines are *meant* for new writers; most of the
don'ts listed are blunders made by newbies. The professionals can bend and
break the rules because they know them thoroughly.
A lot of would-be writers complain that the professionals are allowed to
break the rules while they have to stick to the guidelines, or protest
that they could write a better book than the rubbish that's being
published. No problem - prove it. They're waiting for your submission.
The BBC Books are a tremendous opportunity for talented new writers to
break into publishing. Instead of whining about the rules, follow them.
Instead of bitching about the professionals, join them. Complaining about
how unfair it all is won't get you published. Only submitting good novels
will do that.
--
Kate Blum Orman <kor...@zip.com.au> http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman/
"I have no idea what that meant." - Dot Warner
Susannah Tiller
>
> Yes, but the published authors are allowed to get away with almost anything;
Because they've proven what they're capable of, and shown that they can
produce quality novels. It's not some exclusive cabal...
> can you imagine the look on Steve Cole's face if, say, I had pitched The
> Infinity Doctors to the BBC? Which means that first-time writers are going
> to be forced to churn out faceless, TV-style stories with old Doctors, like
> Last Man Running, before they're allowed to join the exclusive gentlemens'
> club that is the Eighth Doctor Mailing List...
Ahem. Revlution 59, cowritten by Stephen COle and Natalie someone whose
last name I can't remember. if your sub's good enough, it can change
into an Eighth Doctor book. First time writers are capable of producing
brilliance without using old enemies and old faces. Look at Just War,
Left-Handed Hummingbird, Damaged Goods, etc, etc.
> It's rather like Shakespeare being allowed not to spell proper-like, and
> inventing his own words, simply because he's *Shakespeare* and he can do
> what he likes. If an English student did something similar, the examiner
> would throw his work out of the window.
>
Because Shakespeare had built up his reputation over... how long?
Regards,
Susannah
--
Susannah Tiller - susanna...@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/5460/index.html
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right
to be taken seriously" - H. H. Humphrey
Jonathan Blum
Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, but the published authors are allowed to get away with almost anything;
>Infinity Doctors to the BBC? Which means that first-time writers are going
>to be forced to churn out faceless, TV-style stories with old Doctors, like
>Last Man Running, before they're allowed to join the exclusive gentlemens'
>club that is the Eighth Doctor Mailing List...
>It's rather like Shakespeare being allowed not to spell proper-like, and
>inventing his own words, simply because he's *Shakespeare* and he can do
>what he likes. If an English student did something similar, the examiner
>would throw his work out of the window.
You know, just once I'd like to see someone apply an attitude like this
towards a profession *other* than writing.
"I wanna be a stuntman. How come the people who hire stuntmen won't let
my first stunt be jumping off a skyscraper while setting myself on fire
and wrestling a tiger on the way down? I'm sure I saw some established
stuntman do that in the movies last month. If they don't want me to do
that straight off, it's just because I'm not in their little clique."
"It's rather like the way dentists can take a drill to peoples' teeth,
cause they've got a degree and all so they can do what they like. But if
some student picks up a drill, they'll do you for practicing without a
license, they will."
Regards,
Jon Blum
Si Jerram
>You know, just once I'd like to see someone apply an attitude like this
>towards a profession *other* than writing.
>"I wanna be a stuntman. How come the people who hire stuntmen won't let
>my first stunt be jumping off a skyscraper while setting myself on fire
>and wrestling a tiger on the way down? I'm sure I saw some established
>stuntman do that in the movies last month. If they don't want me to do
>that straight off, it's just because I'm not in their little clique."
Good comparison.
>"It's rather like the way dentists can take a drill to peoples' teeth,
>cause they've got a degree and all so they can do what they like. But if
>some student picks up a drill, they'll do you for practicing without a
>license, they will."
Not so good.
Best,
SiMON.
Stephen Graves
Si Jerram wrote in message ...
I disagree; both these professions are ones in which you're placing your own
health, or that of someone else, at risk. Since when was being a Who author
a life-threatening occupation? :-)
SG
Chris Blakeley
: >It's rather like Shakespeare being allowed not to spell proper-like, and
: >inventing his own words, simply because he's *Shakespeare* and he can do
: >what he likes. If an English student did something similar, the examiner
: >would throw his work out of the window.
: You know, just once I'd like to see someone apply an attitude like this
: towards a profession *other* than writing.
: "I wanna be a stuntman. How come the people who hire stuntmen won't let
: my first stunt be jumping off a skyscraper while setting myself on fire
: and wrestling a tiger on the way down? I'm sure I saw some established
: stuntman do that in the movies last month. If they don't want me to do
: that straight off, it's just because I'm not in their little clique."
Yes, but we all sure can write good. It's not our fault that you (by you
I am referring of course to The Unmentionable Cabal of Published Who
Writers!) don't pay attention to the notebooks full of really cool ideas
we have on our desks or else you'd all be ashamed!!
*devils advocate hat off*
Seriously, writing is always seen as easy and always will be until people
actually try it. And while stories may be fairly easy to tell, there's
much more to it than is popularly believed. Which y'all know so I'll stop
now.
But at least you're not ealing with the poetry groups I belong to. One
more poem in the style of Sylvia Plath and I'm going high school on
someone...
C/v
--
* Q: What animal would you be if you could be an animal? *
* A: You already are an animal --from _Microserfs_ *
***************************************************************************
* Chris Blakeley * blak...@acm.msu.edu * CyberSkeptic *
Dangermouse
Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I disagree; both these professions are ones in which you're placing your
own
> health, or that of someone else, at risk. Since when was being a Who
author
> a life-threatening occupation? :-)
All you'd have to do is write a Who story where the Doc meets Mohammed...
--
"This path has been placed before you; the choice to take it is yours
alone"
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/4845/
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Bistro/7312/
John Hutton
> Jonathan Blum (jb...@zipper.zip.com.au) wrote:
> : >It's rather like Shakespeare being allowed not to spell proper-like, and
> : >inventing his own words, simply because he's *Shakespeare* and he can do
> : >what he likes. If an English student did something similar, the examiner
> : >would throw his work out of the window.
> : You know, just once I'd like to see someone apply an attitude like this
> : towards a profession *other* than writing.
> : "I wanna be a stuntman. How come the people who hire stuntmen won't let
> : my first stunt be jumping off a skyscraper while setting myself on fire
> : and wrestling a tiger on the way down? I'm sure I saw some established
> : stuntman do that in the movies last month. If they don't want me to do
> : that straight off, it's just because I'm not in their little clique."
< Editor Mode ON>
> Yes, but we all sure can write good. It's not our fault that you (by you
(change good to well. Also, you may want to reword this, it sounds
awkward)
> I am referring of course to The Unmentionable Cabal of Published Who
> Writers!) don't pay attention to the notebooks full of really cool ideas
(Please do not use unnecessary punctuation in parenthetical comments.
I suggest you reword your phrase to give it the illusion of emphasis)
> we have on our desks or else you'd all be ashamed!!
(??? This is unclear. Do you mean that we would be ashamed that we've
seen it, or ashamed that we haven't published it yet? Please specify)
> *devils advocate hat off*
<Editor Mode OFF/>
Please don't take this the wrong way Chris. When I saw the first line in
your post, well, the irony was simply to much to pass up. :) Just consider
this an affectionate piss-take ;).....
> * Q: What animal would you be if you could be an animal? *
> * A: You already are an animal --from _Microserfs_ *
> ***************************************************************************
> * Chris Blakeley * blak...@acm.msu.edu * CyberSkeptic *
John Hutton
por...@calweb.com
iain truskett - koschei
<URL:mailto:blak...@acm.cse.msu.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> The Unmentionable Cabal of Published Who Writers!
There is no Cabal.
--
iain, who apologises for a very old usenet joke.
William December Starr
iain truskett - koschei <kos...@eh.org> said:
> In article <7ihn3p$e7n$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, Chris Blakeley
> <URL:mailto:blak...@acm.cse.msu.edu> wrote:
> [snip]
> > The Unmentionable Cabal of Published Who Writers!
> [snip]
>
> There is no Cabal.
That's why he didn't mention it.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Helen Fayle
Jonathan Blum wrote:
> In article <7ieosb$m9q$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
> Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It's rather like Shakespeare being allowed not to spell proper-like, and
> >inventing his own words, simply because he's *Shakespeare* and he can do
> >what he likes. If an English student did something similar, the examiner
> >would throw his work out of the window.
>
> You know, just once I'd like to see someone apply an attitude like this
> towards a profession *other* than writing.
>
> "I wanna be a stuntman. How come the people who hire stuntmen won't let
> my first stunt be jumping off a skyscraper while setting myself on fire
> and wrestling a tiger on the way down? I'm sure I saw some established
> stuntman do that in the movies last month. If they don't want me to do
> that straight off, it's just because I'm not in their little clique."
Perhaps because writing is an art, not a "profession", per se?? Because some of
us HAVE practiced, and know our basic moves, and feel confident that we can,
indeed, leap tall buildings with a single bound, drill teeth and fall several
hundred feet?? Perhaps because as an art, its value is in the perception of the
reader, not strictly in an adherence to rules and routines. Perhaps because
although there are people who *aren't* capable of jumping in feet first, there
*are* those of us who do feel capable, and who feel the necessity to break the
rules, in full knowledge of what we're doing and why. Perhaps because some of us
are sick to the back teeth of "those who know" telling us what is and is not
"good fiction", telling you that you must aspire to something that personally you
wouldn't use to line the cat's litter tray with. (So, Who decides...). And how
much more galling to be told on the one hand "*you* can't do this" only to see
that rule flaunted regularly by those already published! There is a double
standard operating to the effect that: If you're unpublished, and you want to try
something out of the ordinary, it's because you're crap, if you're published,
it's a work of genius.
Puh-lease.
You don't know your limits until you go beyond them. Personally, I'd rather reach
for the sky and fall short, than plod along on the ground because someone tells
me I must.
And quite honestly, if publication were any guide to literary merit, David
Eddings, David Gemmell and Piers Anthony could be regarded as genii...
BTW - some reflection on this "Clique" perception. Whilst I don't subscribe to
that, one does notice that the authors quickest to jump up and down and stomp on
anyone "not published" who dares to voice an opinion of the quality of fiction,
techniques of writing, publishing etc that differs from theirs, or from the
"established" views, are all on that list...
Just a thought...
Dangermouse
Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote
> Perhaps because writing is an art, not a "profession", per se?? Because
some of
> us HAVE practiced, and know our basic moves, and feel confident that we
can,
> indeed, leap tall buildings with a single bound, drill teeth and fall
several
> hundred feet
Or because Jon picked the wrong the analogy. Acting might be a better one:
you've gone through RADA, done rep etc, but you're going to have to start
with small roles and supporting roles before you get top billing opposite
Clint Eastwood or Harrison Ford.
To put it bluntly, the real reason why EDA submissions are restricted has
nothing to do with the quality of them - it's so that future developments
can be planned in confidence.
> You don't know your limits until you go beyond them. Personally, I'd
rather reach
> for the sky and fall short, than plod along on the ground because someone
tells
> me I must.
Of course the problem is that if you want to go beyond your limits in some
professions, you never get the chance after you fall short and go splat.
Though I don't think writing ought to be one of those...
> And quite honestly, if publication were any guide to literary merit,
David
> Eddings, David Gemmell and Piers Anthony could be regarded as genii...
Eddings is in his own way - wonderful dialogue and realistic characters.
Gemmell used to be but now has written the same book several times too
often.
> BTW - some reflection on this "Clique" perception. Whilst I don't
subscribe to
> that, one does notice that the authors quickest to jump up and down and
stomp on
> anyone "not published" who dares to voice an opinion of the quality of
fiction,
> techniques of writing, publishing etc that differs from theirs, or from
the
> "established" views, are all on that list...
Some of them...
Daibhid Cheinnedelh
"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>
>
> Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote
> > And quite honestly, if publication were any guide to literary merit,
> David
> > Eddings, David Gemmell and Piers Anthony could be regarded as
genii...
>
> Eddings is in his own way - wonderful dialogue and realistic
characters.
> Gemmell used to be but now has written the same book several times too
> often.
And Eddings hasn't? I'm sorry, but "Of course! We're following the same
prophecy again!" has got to be the stupidest cop-out for reusing a plot
I've ever heard.
Agree with the characters, although they can be *too* realistic. About
half way through the Tamuli I began to feel the only reason Sparhawk &co
were the good guys was 'cos Eddings said they were. In terms of
ruthlessness, bloodlust and inventive torture I'd rank the Elenic
knights somewhere just below the Joker! (Who, of course, ranks just
below my top scorers Gabriel and Tanith.[Note that if the truly insane
are removed from the list, this puts the "heroes" of Elenia at the
top!])
And Ehlana's attitude to power in the later books reminds me WAY too
much of the Barking Baroness...
--
Dave
The opinions above are a product of my memes and
do not necessarily correspond to my own.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Paul Smith
I've just checked the guidelines in case I was mistaken, but I wasn't. I
don't see anything horrendously unreasonable in them - if you do, please let
me know. So parallel universes are out - praise be! Psychic powers ditto -
got sick of that with Virgin. And we can't introduce the Doctor's family -
good, Susan's enough for me.
But even so, I don't think the BBC are going to turn down a brilliant
novel because you mention the Doctor had a grandfather. Check your rejection
letters - along with the bits saying you've broken this rule and that rule,
they'll be the bit saying your writing style is quite up to their standards
yet. I know there are on mine :-)
However, the important thing to remember here is that this is their
football, and if they don't want us to play, they're going to take it home
with them. The BBC print these books to make a profit - given most
publishers' attitudes, I'm amazed they still ask for unsolicited
submissions. If you've got a story that fits their guidelines, send it in
and you're in with a chance: if you've got a story that doesn't, don't
expect them to change their whole commissioning policy just to save you a
rewrite.
Besides, we'll always appreciate the more out-landish stuff here, so
just let us read it.
PDS
Kate Orman
Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote:
The current BBC guidelines are available at:
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~mark.phippen/guidelines.html
Why do would-be writers complain about them?
>Perhaps because writing is an art, not a "profession", per se?? Because
>some of
>us HAVE practiced, and know our basic moves, and feel confident that we can,
>indeed, leap tall buildings with a single bound, drill teeth and fall several
>hundred feet?? Perhaps because as an art, its value is in the perception of the
>reader, not strictly in an adherence to rules and routines. Perhaps because
>although there are people who *aren't* capable of jumping in feet first, there
>*are* those of us who do feel capable, and who feel the necessity to break the
>rules, in full knowledge of what we're doing and why. Perhaps because some of us
>are sick to the back teeth of "those who know" telling us what is and is not
>"good fiction", telling you that you must aspire to something that personally you
>wouldn't use to line the cat's litter tray with. (So, Who decides...). And how
>much more galling to be told on the one hand "*you* can't do this" only to see
>that rule flaunted regularly by those already published! There is a double
>standard operating to the effect that: If you're unpublished, and you want to try
>something out of the ordinary, it's because you're crap, if you're published,
>it's a work of genius.
>Puh-lease.
What nonsense.
Nothing in the guidelines prevents you from submitting something "out of
the ordinary".
In fact, most of the guidelines are concerned with *good writing*. Good
characterisation, strong plotting, research.
But of course you've mastered all of that. So what's "banned" by the
guidelines? Fan fiction cliches. Parallel universes,
Doctor-meets-Brigadier stories, Doctor's-family stories. The stuff of
hundreds of look-alike submissions - nothing "out of the ordinary".
Protesting that one of nearly a hundred Virgin novels concerns the
Doctor's family, despite the guidelines, won't get you published.
Original, fresh, unexpected ideas will get you noticed. Good prose and
plotting will *definitely* get you noticed. You're worrying about the
wrong things.
If you're using the guidelines as a sort of excuse *not* to submit - "Oh,
they'll never accept any of my rule-breaking work" - you'll never get
published.
I'd like to hear *specifically* which parts of the guidelines have killed
an "out of the ordinary" proposal of yours. (No need to give away your
ideas - just which "rules" they violated.). How many submissions have you
made? Why were they rejected?
>You don't know your limits until you go beyond them. Personally, I'd
>rather reach for the sky and fall short, than plod along on the ground
>because someone tells me I must.
How is not submitting a cliched storyline "plodding"?
>And quite honestly, if publication were any guide to literary merit, David
>Eddings, David Gemmell and Piers Anthony could be regarded as genii...
How about the ability to write publishable prose to a deadline? No
unpublished writer can prove they've got that.
David Gerrold once said that a newcomer doesn't have to show they're as
good as the pros - they have to show they're *better*. If what's being
published is crap, that should make it easier for you. :-)
>BTW - some reflection on this "Clique" perception. Whilst I don't
>subscribe to that, one does notice that the authors quickest to jump up
>and down and stomp on anyone "not published" who dares to voice an
>opinion of the quality of fiction, techniques of writing, publishing etc
>that differs from theirs, or from the "established" views, are all on
>that list...
Yes, it's strange that the authors who aren't on the Internet don't have
anything to say. :-)
I'm going to recite the litany again.
Write. Write something every day. Submit proposals. Read the advice in the
rejection letters, and use it to improve your writing. Read "How to Write"
books". Write. Listen to advice. Submit more proposals. Keep submitting
until they accept something. Write. Recognise what a brilliant opportunity
this is to get published. Use the guidelines - they're there to help you
succeed.
William December Starr
kor...@zipper.zip.com.au (Kate Orman) said:
In article <374D44E4...@innotts.co.uk>,
Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote:
> The current BBC guidelines are available at:
>
> http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~mark.phippen/guidelines.html
>
> Why do would-be writers complain about them?
Off on a tangent, I have to wonder whether the BBC slushpile
readers would look favorably upon a line like "These novels will
generally stand alone independently of each other, rather than
forming an on-going series..." :-)
Jonathan Blum
Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"I wanna be a stuntman. How come the people who hire stuntmen won't let
>>>my first stunt be jumping off a skyscraper while setting myself on fire
>>>and wrestling a tiger on the way down? I'm sure I saw some established
>>>stuntman do that in the movies last month. If they don't want me to do
>>>that straight off, it's just because I'm not in their little clique."
>>>"It's rather like the way dentists can take a drill to peoples' teeth,
>>>cause they've got a degree and all so they can do what they like. But if
>>>some student picks up a drill, they'll do you for practicing without a
>>>license, they will."
>I disagree; both these professions are ones in which you're placing your own
>health, or that of someone else, at risk. Since when was being a Who author
>a life-threatening occupation? :-)
True, but not exactly relevant to the point at hand. But if you don't
like those analogies, I'll just rattle off a few more. Think about a
newbie caterer who's miffed that he doesn't get picked to cater Bill
Gates' birthday dinner, or a young guitarist complaining that, even though
the record label will listen to his demo tapes and possibly even sign him,
there's no chance they'll let him spend as much time and money on his
first album as Paul Simon did on "Graceland". The point remains the same:
of _course_ there are some situations where The Powers That Be will trust
someone with experience to do a good job, where they've got no such reason
to put that same trust in someone with no experience.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Trina L. Short
wrote:
>Write. Write something every day. Submit proposals. Read the advice in the
>rejection letters, and use it to improve your writing. Read "How to Write"
>books". Write. Listen to advice. Submit more proposals. Keep submitting
>until they accept something. Write. Recognise what a brilliant opportunity
>this is to get published. Use the guidelines - they're there to help you
>succeed.
And the only thing that needs to be added to the above is "read, read,
read." There's a Latin phrase I've always liked (but I'm not sure I
have the spelling correct). Lege, lege, aliqued harebit. "Read,
read, something may stick."
--trinalin
©1999 ACME Page Fillers, Inc.
http://www.pagefillers.com
Kate Orman
Dr. Evil <dr-...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Who, exactly, are you talking to here?
Some of my comments are meant generally, rather than as specific responses
to Helen. Apologies for any confusion.
I seem to be turning into one of those grouchy professionals you see in
r.a.sf.written.composition, fed up with hopeful writers obsessing over
rules and complaining about fairness, instead of writing, submitting,
writing, submitting.
So many fan fiction authors who *could* become professionals don't make it
because they don't try, try, and try again. There's a lot of talent out
there - but unless it's packaged in a usable submission, it's never going
to make it onto the shelves.
That's *heartbreaking*. That's why I rant and rail at would-be authors who
waste time grumbling instead of sharpening their skills and sending in
proposal after proposal.
If your goal is to get published, it's *useless* to complain that the
professionals are churning out rubbish. Write. Submit. It's *useless* to
protest that you know better than the editor. Write. Submit. It's
*useless* to complain that the pros don't have to follow the guidelines.
Write. Submit. If you can do better than they can, prove it. Submit. You
will submit! :-)
[...]
>I think Helen knows all that. What she was saying was that
>Jon's attitude was wrong, and that in all likelihood there
>certainly are better authors submitting stuff than what
>passes for the current crop. It just doesn't help when
>published authors somehow see the way the guidelines are
>written as the only excuse being used.
The awful truth is that almost every unsolicited submission is unusable.
That's true for *all* publishers. Most of it's rubbish. Some of it's a
good effort that isn't quite up to scratch. Very occasionally, there's a
gem.
The bulk of the guidelines is advice about GOOD WRITING. Character
motivation. Strong plotting. If the guidelines didn't exist, those "rules"
would still come into play. They're not an "excuse" for rejecting
proposals which aren't good enough.
The stuff which *isn't* concerned with good writing is excellent advice,
helping the would-be writer to avoid cliches and copyright problems. The
guidelines are there to *help newbies get published*, not to exclude them!
It's comforting to think that new writers' submissions are being rejected
because the editors are biased and unfair. That means you don't need to
improve your prose, your plotting - you've just been cruelly treated by an
unfair system.
A talented writer with that attitude is shooting themself in the foot.
They'll give up, or they'll miss the chance to improve their work and
convince the editor to give them another try. It's enough to make an old
hack like me weep.
Jack Beven
>
> In article <7ihjs5$fgr$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
> True, but not exactly relevant to the point at hand. But if you don't
> like those analogies, I'll just rattle off a few more. Think about a
> newbie caterer who's miffed that he doesn't get picked to cater Bill
> Gates' birthday dinner, or a young guitarist complaining that, even
> though the record label will listen to his demo tapes and possibly
> even sign him, there's no chance they'll let him spend as much time
> and money on his first album as Paul Simon did on "Graceland". The
> point remains the same: of _course_ there are some situations where
> The Powers That Be will trust someone with experience to do a good
> job, where they've got no such reason to put that same trust in
> someone with no experience.
Isn't there a danger in this attitude, though? The danger that
the editor and the writers may come down with the idea "We're the
only one who can write Doctor Who. None of the would-be's can do
it!"?
Also, IIRC didn't Virgin put their trust in someone with no
experience, like Kate? :-)
I've been on both sides of this arguement, Jon. As an up and
coming graduate student, I threw more than a few darts at my
future employers because I thought I could do the job as well
or better than them. Now, I'm doing the job, and I'm going to
have a lot of people throwing darts at me for the same reason.
I'd be foolish to think there aren't at least a few of them
who could do the job better than me!
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
http://people.delphi.com/jbeven/ jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my
employers...
Jack Beven
[snip]
> It's comforting to think that new writers' submissions are being
> rejected because the editors are biased and unfair. That means you
> don't need to improve your prose, your plotting - you've just been
> cruelly treated by an unfair system.
Kate, while you are undoubtedly correct about how many of the
submissions are bad, what if the newbies are actually right about
the system being stacked against them? That would mean that all
of their time, energy, effort, talent, and persistence would be
wasted, wouldn't it?
You've consistently preached about how the newbies should keep
trying, and IMHO that's good. However, at the risk of pointing out
the obvious, you and the other authors aren't necessarily unbiased
observers to those who are trying to publish DW stories, or even
to someone like me who isn't trying. Is there any *objective*
evidence that you or the other authors could provide to show the
newbies that the deck isn't really stacked against them?
(I know it sounds strange asking potentially biased witnesses
for evidence, but IMHO you, Jon, Steve Cole, etc, are the only
ones in position to provide it!)
In the long run, I think the only thing that will quiet this
criticsm is for *several* newbies to get their EDA submissions
published. Then, the established authors can look at the would-be's
and say "See, the system works!"
Kate Orman
>> In article <7ihjs5$fgr$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
>
>> True, but not exactly relevant to the point at hand. But if you don't
>> like those analogies, I'll just rattle off a few more. Think about a
>> newbie caterer who's miffed that he doesn't get picked to cater Bill
>> Gates' birthday dinner, or a young guitarist complaining that, even
>> though the record label will listen to his demo tapes and possibly
>> even sign him, there's no chance they'll let him spend as much time
>> and money on his first album as Paul Simon did on "Graceland". The
>> point remains the same: of _course_ there are some situations where
>> The Powers That Be will trust someone with experience to do a good
>> job, where they've got no such reason to put that same trust in
>> someone with no experience.
>
> Isn't there a danger in this attitude, though? The danger that
>the editor and the writers may come down with the idea "We're the
>only one who can write Doctor Who. None of the would-be's can do
>it!"?
>
> Also, IIRC didn't Virgin put their trust in someone with no
>experience, like Kate? :-)
[...]
All of this misses the point.
I have a feeling that, underlying this discussion, there's the lingering
resentment that new writers can't pitch for the Eighth Doctor line. It's
unfair. It insults untried writers.
There are a number of problems with this attitude.
One is that the BBC is running a business, not a competition. They don't
HAVE to consider unsolicited submissions AT ALL. Fairness doesn't come
into it - they're doing would-be writers a favour.
More importantly, the Eighth Doctor line was NOT closed to new writers
because anyone felt new writers couldn't possibly be as good as published
ones. If that was the case, NO unsolicited submissions would be accepted.
At all.
I'm sure you remember Steve Cole's announcement:
"...the Short Trips series in particular has benefited from new authors, a
trend I hope shall continue.
"I took this decision because I want to bring more focus and direction to
the McGann novels, and also to make it easier to keep surprises in store
for the fans - making the books more the equivalent of a new series.
"It also just seems sensible in the light of the fact I've got most of
next year mapped out now, including a possible new companion I only want
to use for a short time - there'd be no point sending out character
studies to would-be writers when I already have a clear idea when I want
her out again."
NOTHING in that announcement suggests that new writers aren't good enough
- in fact, it says the opposite!
And even more importantly than all that, if you want to be published, if
you *really* want to write an EDA, you'll crawl over broken glass to do
it. :-) Gods know, I would have.
Mariane Desautels
>
> Kate Orman wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > It's comforting to think that new writers' submissions are being
> > rejected because the editors are biased and unfair. That means you
> > don't need to improve your prose, your plotting - you've just been
> > cruelly treated by an unfair system.
>
> Kate, while you are undoubtedly correct about how many of the
> submissions are bad, what if the newbies are actually right about
> the system being stacked against them? That would mean that all
> of their time, energy, effort, talent, and persistence would be
> wasted, wouldn't it?
>
> You've consistently preached about how the newbies should keep
> trying, and IMHO that's good. However, at the risk of pointing out
> the obvious, you and the other authors aren't necessarily unbiased
> observers to those who are trying to publish DW stories, or even
> to someone like me who isn't trying. Is there any *objective*
> evidence that you or the other authors could provide to show the
> newbies that the deck isn't really stacked against them?
*They* got published, didn't they?
M
--
And may I remind you that taking over the universe is against the Motel
regulations and local West Midlands by-laws.
Kate Orman
> Kate, while you are undoubtedly correct about how many of the
>submissions are bad, what if the newbies are actually right about
>the system being stacked against them? That would mean that all
>of their time, energy, effort, talent, and persistence would be
>wasted, wouldn't it?
You seem to be suggesting that there are hurdles for newbies over and
above being obliged to submit only PDAs and short stories. Do others
concur? What's the evidence?
> You've consistently preached about how the newbies should keep
>trying, and IMHO that's good. However, at the risk of pointing out
>the obvious, you and the other authors aren't necessarily unbiased
>observers to those who are trying to publish DW stories, or even
>to someone like me who isn't trying. Is there any *objective*
>evidence that you or the other authors could provide to show the
>newbies that the deck isn't really stacked against them?
I doubt it.
For one thing, there's no wholly objective way of comparing one proposal
with another. One of the biggest problem for hopeful authors is that it's
very difficult to look at your own work with a critical eye. (It's
brilliant! How could they reject it? It must be prejudice!)
For another, in a way, the system *is* stacked against new writers.
I don't mean that the readers knock off ten marks if they don't recognise
your name. I mean that you're up against a large pool of professional
authors, who the editor *knows* can deliver publishable prose on time. I
mentioned David Gerrold's assertion that you have to be *better* than the
pros, not just as good as them.
I don't think it's as simple as that - too many new writers have been
published, by Virgin and the Beeb. But it does mean you've got to grab the
reader's attention with a fresh, strong idea, some great prose, a solid
plot. You've got to stand out as terrific. The folks who've had
encouraging rejection slips have done just that, even if that particular
book wasn't The One.
Being a hopeful writer takes an odd combination of egotism and humility.
You've got to be confident in your work, tough enough to handle criticism
(and flexible enough to learn from it). You've also got to be able to
recognise when you're being given a break, a chance, and to accept that
the editor is the one who makes the rules and the decisions.
Are the new writers' efforts going to waste? Why not ask some of the first
time novelists in the BBC's range if their time was wasted?
Magic Myrka
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Kate, while you are undoubtedly correct about how many of the
> submissions are bad, what if the newbies are actually right about
> the system being stacked against them? That would mean that all
> of their time, energy, effort, talent, and persistence would be
> wasted, wouldn't it?
Stepping in, if I may...
Say you've got two series of novels running side by side. One series is
an ongoing series of novels, where events in one book may affect
subsequent books. Another is a series of unlinked novels. You accept
submissions from newbies.
If you accept submissions for both lines, you will get more submissions
for the ongoing series. For all sorts of reasons - it's more
interesting, meatier, whatever. But as an editor, you've got plotlines
going forward to think of. If you get a submission for the ongoing
series, it is unlikely to fit. You're more likely to have to turn it
down.
There are two ways to avoid this. One is to publish all your
forthcoming plot developments up front. Like, a year or two ahead. The
other is to restrict applications to the other series of books. The one
where you don't need to know everything that's going on.
So preventing people from submitting Eighth Doctor proposals cuts down
on the number of rejections, and keeps plot developments secret. I can
live with that. I think that's doing me a favour.
Frankly, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can ONLY write a good
Eighth Doctor book, and can't POSSIBLY write for, say, Pertwee. I'm
also prepared to believe that if I do write a 3rd Doc proposal and it
works with the BBC's great scheme, I would be asked to rework it for the
8th Doc. This is all hypothetical, natch.
Point is - I think that were I to submit a proposal, the stakes would be
stacked more in my favour than before the ban on new submissions to the
8th Doc range.
> You've consistently preached about how the newbies should keep
> trying, and IMHO that's good. However, at the risk of pointing out
> the obvious, you and the other authors aren't necessarily unbiased
> observers to those who are trying to publish DW stories, or even
> to someone like me who isn't trying. Is there any *objective*
> evidence that you or the other authors could provide to show the
> newbies that the deck isn't really stacked against them?
Course there isn't. Is there any objective evidence to show the deck IS
stacked against newbie authors? Nope. Within newbie authors, is there
any evidence to show that the deck is stacked against young French one
handed lesbian authors?
> (I know it sounds strange asking potentially biased witnesses
> for evidence, but IMHO you, Jon, Steve Cole, etc, are the only
> ones in position to provide it!)
Everyone with an opinion on this is biased, aren't they?
> In the long run, I think the only thing that will quiet this
> criticsm is for *several* newbies to get their EDA submissions
> published. Then, the established authors can look at the would-be's
> and say "See, the system works!"
I suspect you're right.
alan
--
check out the myrka zone.
http://home.netvigator.com/~mandel
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
kha...@mail.smartchat.net.au
newbie prospects to write Doctor Who?
(1) Some new writers (it would seem) are doing more howling at the moon than
actual writing
(2) We are discussing a hierarchy that doesn't actually exist in terms of the
shoguns (the current established authors) versus the oppressed villagers (the
undiscovered writers).
(3) People don't seem to find it exciting that writing a Doctor Who novel
could be an elusive goal and challenge. They'd prefer it to be a hell of a lot
easier.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the current system. In many ways
some of the BBC Books have been so bad it could only encourage somebody to try
and churn out a sizzler of a story.
But ENOUGH RHETORIC! I hear you say. Okay, I'll shut up.
Sietel.
Si Jerram
(A lot of stuff I agree with).
> Frankly, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can ONLY write a good
> Eighth Doctor book, and can't POSSIBLY write for, say, Pertwee. I'm
> also prepared to believe that if I do write a 3rd Doc proposal and it
> works with the BBC's great scheme, I would be asked to rework it for the
> 8th Doc. This is all hypothetical, natch.
There's another school of thought who would say if you can't possibly
write for a Doctor other than the current (there's 7 of them to choose
from!) if you're more interested in making your mark on the on-going
series than actually writing and getting published, then frankly you're
not really good enough.
SiMON
--
Simon Jerram Email:si...@telos.clara.co.uk
Oh I can't be bothered anymore.
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: < Editor Mode ON>
[snip]
: <Editor Mode OFF/>
:
: Please don't take this the wrong way Chris. When I saw the first line in
: your post, well, the irony was simply to much to pass up. :) Just consider
: this an affectionate piss-take ;).....
I think that would be "too much to pass up".
--
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman - DOCTOR WHO, STAR
Paul Gadzikowski TREK, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER and M*A*S*H - King
Arthur's Round Table - Cartoons - Archy the Cockroach
scar...@iglou.com NEW 5/28/99: DOCTOR WHO/M*A*S*H crossover cartoons
FEATURED: TRANSFORMATIONS 4/4 Saavik regenerates
Slake
Jonathan Blum wrote:
> "It's rather like the way dentists can take a drill to peoples' teeth,
> cause they've got a degree and all so they can do what they like. But if
> some student picks up a drill, they'll do you for practicing without a
> license, they will."
They will?
They'll have to catch me first...
_ _
Slake
(No relation)
Ben Woodhams
>
> John Hutton (por...@web1.calweb.com) wrote:
> : < Editor Mode ON>
>
> [snip]
>
> : <Editor Mode OFF/>
> :
> : Please don't take this the wrong way Chris. When I saw the first line in
> : your post, well, the irony was simply to much to pass up. :) Just consider
> : this an affectionate piss-take ;).....
>
> I think that would be "too much to pass up".
ROTFLMAO!
ben w.
--
"I know only that I exist - everything else is just my opinion."
Jonathan Blum
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Blum wrote:
>> The
>> point remains the same: of _course_ there are some situations where
>> The Powers That Be will trust someone with experience to do a good
>> job, where they've got no such reason to put that same trust in
>> someone with no experience.
> Isn't there a danger in this attitude, though? The danger that
>the editor and the writers may come down with the idea "We're the
>only one who can write Doctor Who. None of the would-be's can do
>it!"?
If the editors felt that way, do you really think they'd still bother
reading through umpteen slushpile novels, or running a competition to
ensure an unpublished writer got into the short-story collections?
> Also, IIRC didn't Virgin put their trust in someone with no
>experience, like Kate? :-)
At the time, Virgin didn't trust new authors to play with old monsters.
The only old-monster stories, like "Blood Heat" and "Iceberg", were in the
hands of established Virgin writers. Kate followed the guidelines, and
got in on the merits of her own storytelling -- without having to
transgress the Rules. There's nothing to stop anyone else who can write
something as good as "Left-Handed Hummingbird" from doing the same.
[snip]
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
>And how
>much more galling to be told on the one hand "*you* can't do this" only to see
>that rule flaunted regularly by those already published! There is a double
>standard operating to the effect that: If you're unpublished, and you want to try
>something out of the ordinary, it's because you're crap, if you're published,
>it's a work of genius.
That's nonsense. Their problem is not that you're crap; it's that you're
*unproven*. The Beeb needs proof that you can pull off your ideas. For
most books, the only proof they demand is an outline and 4,000 words of
prose -- less than Virgin ever asked for. But when it comes to some
really ambitious stories, I think it's perfectly understandable that the
Beeb would be more skeptical, unless they had the proof that you could
pull off a whole novel.
Especially if you were proposing something as risky as "Infinity Doctors",
which even in the hands of a lesser published author could easily have
been an irredeemable pit of fanwank.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Daibhid Cheinnedelh
kha...@smartchat.net.au wrote:
<snip>
> (2) We are discussing a hierarchy that doesn't actually exist in terms
of the
> shoguns (the current established authors) versus the oppressed
villagers (the
> undiscovered writers).
The next step is for them all to club together and get a team of seven
cynical, hard-bitten literary-agents-for-hire...
Seriously, there's been a couple of times when we seemed to be moving in
the direction of "The Beeb won't publish my book. Since I know it's the
best Doctor Who novel ever written, there must be a conspiracy against
new authors".
Luckily we haven't quite got there... yet.
--
Dave
The opinions above are a product of my memes and
do not necessarily correspond to my own.
Mags
Daibhid Cheinnedelh wrote in message <7im8n3$jku$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <374E6E22...@mail.smartchat.net.au>,
> kha...@smartchat.net.au wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> (2) We are discussing a hierarchy that doesn't actually exist in terms
>of the
>> shoguns (the current established authors) versus the oppressed
>villagers (the
>> undiscovered writers).
>
>The next step is for them all to club together and get a team of seven
>cynical, hard-bitten literary-agents-for-hire...
>
>Seriously, there's been a couple of times when we seemed to be moving in
>the direction of "The Beeb won't publish my book. Since I know it's the
>best Doctor Who novel ever written, there must be a conspiracy against
>new authors".
>
>Luckily we haven't quite got there... yet.
Don't give anyone any ideas....
Mags
--
"Oh, brother." Archive With No Name:
http://www.archivewivnoname.free-online.co.uk
Moosifer Jones' Lair:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/3366
Lighthope
Greetings.
> Re-read your old work. Can you see ways to improve it?
In all my years of life (all five of them, my wife says...hahaha), I've never once met a
writer of any caliber who did not find ways to improve upon his work even after the hundredth
revision.
> What's your passion? Your hobbies? Your interests? Don't write "Doctor
> Who" the way you think it "should" be written - introduce your own
> personality, the things you can talk about. Set a story in a place, a
> time, around a profession which fascinates you.
Steven Spielberg and George Lucas follow this advice religiously. Spielberg was quoted as
saying that he writes movies the HE would enjoy.
--
Pearls of Wisdom:
"Yes, well, even dung can smell better after a few nights." - Tiggra explaining his philosophy
about humans. (Tigers' Quest)
--=== T H E D O C T O R W H O A U D I O D R A M A S ===--
http://www.jps.net/lighthope
Last Updated: Friday, May 28, 1999
Notice: Unsolicited ("junk", "spam") e-mail advertisements are
not allowed at this address. Penalty $500.00 charge
per incident
Kate Orman
Zebee Johnstone <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>In rec.arts.drwho on Sat, 29 May 1999 04:31:38 +0100
>Ben Woodhams <b...@pvcdiva.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Either way, that's pretty offensive to those (not including myself,
>>btw.) who *are* following Kate's route of submitting, and resubmitting,
>>and resubmitting....
>If you are submitting and resubmitting and resubmitting and not getting
>anywhere than it seems that you *are* in the number who can't
>get their chin above the bar.
>
>So either you give up or you keep going till you do get it there.
If you feel you're stuck in a holding pattern, try to work out what's
keeping you there. What advice have your rejection letters given? Can a
"how to write" book or Web page help, or perhaps a course in creative
writing? Re-read your old work. Can you see ways to improve it?
How about reading something you normally wouldn't read - perhaps a book on
history, a classic novel, the National Geographic? Reading outside your
usual interests can help stretch your mind and spark ideas.
What's your passion? Your hobbies? Your interests? Don't write "Doctor
Who" the way you think it "should" be written - introduce your own
personality, the things you can talk about. Set a story in a place, a
time, around a profession which fascinates you.
A couple of my favourite URLs:
http://www.efn.org/~dknight/plot/
"Plot", by Damon Knight. About short stories, but helpful for novelists
too.
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/writing/turkey.city.html
The Turkey City Lexicon. Common blunders in SF novels.
Rebecca K. Dowgiert
(kha...@mail.smartchat.net.au) writes:
<SNIP>
> I don't think there's anything wrong with the current system. In many ways
> some of the BBC Books have been so bad it could only encourage somebody to try
> and churn out a sizzler of a story.
Human Nature - 'tis easier to whinge than actually write the damned thing...
I wonder...can I think up a sizzler of a story........
--Bex
--
**********************************************
home: http://www.luoda.com/home.html
design: http://www.luoda.com
**********************************************
al...@escritoire.demon.co.uk
in the lock for the last time.
'I still don't get it sir,' said his assistant. 'There we were pumping out
paperbacks, perfect pulp fodder for the fans, should have worked
forever...'
'And we'd have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for those darn
kids!'
'Kids, sir?'
'Internet upstarts! Sales started tailing away when the punters started
reading fanfic on the net, for free! I ask you!'
'But I didn't think that stuff was any good sir?'
'Oh alot of it wasn't, but all those rejected submissions... Well some of
the fools actually wrote their novels.'
'And they were good?'
'No. Most weren't but there had to be some diamonds in the all the dirt.'
'I see, so these "kids" are writing for nothing, gratis like sir.'
'Well no change there, you know what we paid our authors.'
'Yes, right sir, that reminds me about my last pay cheque.'
'Of course we brought it on ourselves...'
'My pay cheque sir?'
'We gave them something to aim for, taking unsoliciteds, it made them
strive to improve.'
'Never noticed it myself sir.'
'That is why I employed you.'
'Pay cheque?'
'Past tense.'
A robo-chauffeured hover-car pulled up and the ex-series editor got in
with his cardboard box, it sped away.
'Goodbye sir.' said the assistant, taking a moving pavement to the
monorail station.
When the assistant stood on the platform he started laughing.
'You moron, ha, ha, "those darn kids", ha, ha. It was me all along. I
wrote those Internet novels just to get even, ha, ha ha!'
The people on the platform tried to ignore the laughing nutter.
The monorail arrived and the assistant went home to write a new story.
Dr. Evil
>
> (kha...@mail.smartchat.net.au) writes:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > I don't think there's anything wrong with the current system. In many ways
> > some of the BBC Books have been so bad it could only encourage somebody to try
> > and churn out a sizzler of a story.
>
> Human Nature - 'tis easier to whinge than actually write the damned thing...
And of course the two are mutually exclusive...
--
dr-...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk
If you want a friend, feed any animal
Stephen Graves
Kate Orman wrote in message <7inrb7$a4$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
>What's your passion? Your hobbies? Your interests? Don't write "Doctor
>Who" the way you think it "should" be written - introduce your own
>personality, the things you can talk about. Set a story in a place, a
>time, around a profession which fascinates you.
Or, failing that, write any old crap, and ask William Gibson to put his name
at the top of it, next to yours... :-)
Thing is, almost all of the time periods that I want to write about have
already been done to death. The Sixties and flower power have pretty much
been covered by Hummer and Revolution Man, Renaissance Italy has The Masque
of Mandragora and Empire of Glass. World War Two has Just War, Exodus and
Illegal Alien.
The only time periods that I'd like to do that haven't been comprehensively
covered are the Cold War in the late fifties (and we've already had First
Frontier) and the Russian Revolution and Civil War (and frankly, I'm
astonished that no-one's jumped in there with a historical yet). I don't yet
know enough about the Revolution to write a book; I'm waiting until I go to
uni and study it there, and by that time, someone will already have written
the story...
I suppose the best thing to do is to find a completely obscure period of
history that no-one would ever think of writing about. Outer Mongolia in the
5th Century, perhaps..... :-)
SG
SG
Kate Orman
Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Or, failing that, write any old crap, and ask William Gibson to put his name
>at the top of it, next to yours... :-)
Alas for this theory, Jon and I submitted three proposals for our first
BBC Book, and two of them were rejected. :-) I think Jon's more than
proven himself by now.
It's a myth that the pros can get any old crap accepted. I'm not saying
there aren't some lousy "Doctor Who" books. But I've had plenty of
rejection slips since "Hummer". The world will be spared classics such as
"Madness in his Method", in which Chris and Roz are turned into children,
and time goes backward at the end and brings everyone back to life. :-P
Stephen Graves
Kate Orman wrote in message <7io8oe$8bv$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
>In article <7io7nj$qm8$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
>Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Or, failing that, write any old crap, and ask William Gibson to put his
name
>>at the top of it, next to yours... :-)
And you thought I was joking... :-) I met William Gibson's niece a few years
ago in Greece, and later managed to collar the man himself at a signing.
Maybe I can blackmail him... :-)
>Alas for this theory, Jon and I submitted three proposals for our first
>BBC Book, and two of them were rejected. :-)
What were they? It'd be cool if you'd post them on your web site, if only
out of academic interest (and so we know not to try submitting them
ourselves :-) And whatever happened to Faust Forward?
>It's a myth that the pros can get any old crap accepted. I'm not saying
>there aren't some lousy "Doctor Who" books. But I've had plenty of
>rejection slips since "Hummer". The world will be spared classics such as
>"Madness in his Method", in which Chris and Roz are turned into children,
>and time goes backward at the end and brings everyone back to life. :-P
Rather distressingly, every time I come up with a Good Idea, you two turn up
and make it into a novel. Or Lawrence Miles uses it in a throwaway line in
one of his books... :-) Are you guys telepathic, or something?
SG
David Brider
> "It's rather like the way dentists can take a drill to peoples' teeth,
> cause they've got a degree and all so they can do what they like. But if
> some student picks up a drill, they'll do you for practicing without a
> license, they will."
OT, but isn't there a Chris Morris/Day Today joke there somewhere?
David.
--
"Belief was never meant to be boring."
-------------------Deliriou5?-------------------
MEZZAMORPHIS. DELIRIOU5?
AVAILABLE FROM ALL GOOD RECORD SHOPS
OUT NOW
My web page is at
http://www.dwjbrider.freeserve.co.uk/homepage.htm
Kate Orman
Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Kate Orman wrote in message <7io8oe$8bv$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
[...]
>>Alas for this theory, Jon and I submitted three proposals for our first
>>BBC Book, and two of them were rejected. :-)
>What were they? It'd be cool if you'd post them on your web site, if only
>out of academic interest (and so we know not to try submitting them
>ourselves :-) And whatever happened to Faust Forward?
Sorry - we recycle. :-)
The hopefuls aren't the only ones whose novels sometimes don't make it
past the planning stage! "Faust Forward", an NA set in Australia, was
never submitted, though I did get as far as writing some of the first
chapter. Similarly, DWM 277 mentions that I "developed" two Sixth Doctor
proposals for Virgin, but while I actually submitted "The Pinocchio
Virus", "The Empty House" was never anything more than a few scribbled
notes. Some of its ideas ended up in "Set Piece".
[...]
>Rather distressingly, every time I come up with a Good Idea, you two turn
>up and make it into a novel. Or Lawrence Miles uses it in a throwaway
>line in one of his books... :-) Are you guys telepathic, or something?
Getting ideas is the easy part! Especially if you're on the lookout for
them, in real life, on TV, in magazines, on the Web, scribbling down
anything that strikes you in a journal. That's why people tend to come up
with the same ones a lot. Turning them into a publishable novel is the
hard part. :-)
Stephen Graves
Kate Orman wrote in message <7iplcl$3ec$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
>In article <7ip3ct$bu7$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
>Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Kate Orman wrote in message <7io8oe$8bv$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
>
>[...]
>Similarly, DWM 277 mentions that I "developed" two Sixth Doctor
>proposals for Virgin, but while I actually submitted "The Pinocchio
>Virus",
<snipped>
What was that about, then? Nanoviral weapons that make your nose grow when
you lie? Could spell doom for politicians across the world...
Ever thought of resubmitting it to the Beeb? Everyone else seems to do
it... :-)
>>Rather distressingly, every time I come up with a Good Idea, you two turn
>>up and make it into a novel. Or Lawrence Miles uses it in a throwaway
>>line in one of his books... :-) Are you guys telepathic, or something?
>
>Getting ideas is the easy part! Especially if you're on the lookout for
>them, in real life, on TV, in magazines, on the Web, scribbling down
>anything that strikes you in a journal. That's why people tend to come up
>with the same ones a lot. Turning them into a publishable novel is the
>hard part. :-)
Tell me about it... :-( I remember reading in an interview that Nigel
Robinson wrote his novels around a set of images and other cool ideas he was
struck by; I have some ideas and settings, I just can't work out a decent
plot to link them. Ah well, such is life...
SG
Clive May
Stephen...@hotmail.com "Stephen Graves" writes:
>
> Kate Orman wrote in message <7io8oe$8bv$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
> >In article <7io7nj$qm8$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> >Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
> >and time goes backward at the end and brings everyone back to life. :-P
Already been done.
The Hemmingway Hoax, I think? At least: The Hemmingway something or other?
by Ben Bova??
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: > What's your passion? Your hobbies? Your interests? Don't write "Doctor
: > Who" the way you think it "should" be written - introduce your own
: > personality, the things you can talk about. Set a story in a place, a
: > time, around a profession which fascinates you.
: Steven Spielberg and George Lucas follow this advice religiously. Spielberg was quoted as
: saying that he writes movies the HE would enjoy.
C.S. Lewis said the same of the Narnian Chronicles.
OJ THORNTON
: Lighthope (ligh...@jps.net) wrote:
: : > What's your passion? Your hobbies? Your interests? Don't write "Doctor
: : > Who" the way you think it "should" be written - introduce your own
: : > personality, the things you can talk about. Set a story in a place, a
: : > time, around a profession which fascinates you.
: : Steven Spielberg and George Lucas follow this advice religiously. Spielberg was quoted as
: : saying that he writes movies the HE would enjoy.
: C.S. Lewis said the same of the Narnian Chronicles.
My problem is that I'm still at the beginning of my life and I
haven't *done* a great deal, really. I suppose I could try setting a
Dr. Who novel around a university in the North of England. But why
depress everybody else?
kOJT
Kathy Sullivan
ojth...@bradford.ac.uk (OJ THORNTON) wrote:
> Jonathan Blum (jb...@zipper.zip.com.au) wrote:
>
> : What Kate told me, when trying to get me to send in that blasted
"Time
> : Rift" proposal, was that since most of the submissions *weren't*
really in
> : the running -- their rejection letters were checklist jobs -- that
meant
> : the odds for a submission which didn't fall into those basic traps
were
> : quite a bit better. And even if I didn't get in, she told me to aim
for a
> : good rejection letter, so I could improve.
>
> So - those helpful checklists simply meant I was an out-and-out
> failure? And I thought they were being nice and encouraging ("Game
over
> - please try again" said the rejection letter...and he did, the
idiot).
>
> Okay, setting the targets lower, what are the "basic traps" to avoid,
so
> I get a "good" rejection letter?
>
There's some helpful ideas at
http://www.sfwa.org/writing/writing.htm
http://www.sfwa.org/writing/ex_writing.htm
Kathy Sullivan
Kate Orman
OJ THORNTON <ojth...@bradford.ac.uk> wrote:
>Okay, setting the targets lower, what are the "basic traps" to avoid, so
>I get a "good" rejection letter?
The guidelines and the checklist should give a pretty good idea of the
most basic mistakes to avoid. (I'm curious about what items are on that
checklist - could you summarise it for us?)
Kate Orman
Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Me:
>>"The Pinocchio Virus",
>What was that about, then? Nanoviral weapons that make your nose grow when
>you lie? Could spell doom for politicians across the world...
For a hint, check out SLEEPY, page 150. :-)
> Ever thought of resubmitting it to the Beeb? Everyone else seems to do
>it... :-)
"Pinocchio Virus" was one of those proposals, like "An Undreaming World",
which was never rejected but which we just never got back to. :-)
Corey Klemow
> In article <7irhdp$b2o$2...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>,
> OJ THORNTON <ojth...@bradford.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Okay, setting the targets lower, what are the "basic traps" to avoid, so
> >I get a "good" rejection letter?
>
> The guidelines and the checklist should give a pretty good idea of the
> most basic mistakes to avoid. (I'm curious about what items are on that
> checklist - could you summarise it for us?)
I posted the whole BBC Books rejection checklist here when I got mine for
"The Supreme Beings"; you ought to be able to find it on Deja (ex-"News") by
Power Searching for "CKl...@compuserve.com rejection Beeb" -- I think the
thread title was "Rejected by the Beeb at Last!" or summat.
coreY "can't be arsed to look myself right now" klemoW
CKl...@compuserve.com
Susannah Tiller
> > Jonathan Blum (jb...@zipper.zip.com.au) wrote:
> >
> > : What Kate told me, when trying to get me to send in that blasted
> "Time
> > : Rift" proposal, was that since most of the submissions *weren't*
> really in
> > : the running -- their rejection letters were checklist jobs -- that
> meant
> > : the odds for a submission which didn't fall into those basic traps
> were
> > : quite a bit better. And even if I didn't get in, she told me to aim
> for a
> > : good rejection letter, so I could improve.
> >
> > So - those helpful checklists simply meant I was an out-and-out
> > failure? And I thought they were being nice and encouraging ("Game
> over
> > - please try again" said the rejection letter...and he did, the
> idiot).
> >
> so
> > I get a "good" rejection letter?
> >
> http://www.sfwa.org/writing/writing.htm
> http://www.sfwa.org/writing/ex_writing.htm
>
obvious, there's some interesting stuff on there about character
motivation, etc.
Regards,
Susannah
--
Susannah Tiller - susanna...@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/5460/index.html
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right
to be taken seriously" - H. H. Humphrey
Daniel Frankham
>Kate Orman wrote:
>
>> In article <7irhdp$b2o$2...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>,
>>
>> >Okay, setting the targets lower, what are the "basic traps" to avoid, so
>> >I get a "good" rejection letter?
>>
>> most basic mistakes to avoid. (I'm curious about what items are on that
>> checklist - could you summarise it for us?)
>
>I posted the whole BBC Books rejection checklist here when I got mine for
>"The Supreme Beings"; you ought to be able to find it on Deja (ex-"News") by
>Power Searching for "CKl...@compuserve.com rejection Beeb" -- I think the
>thread title was "Rejected by the Beeb at Last!" or summat.
>
>coreY "can't be arsed to look myself right now" klemoW
>CKl...@compuserve.com
Here it is:
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=419851432
--
Daniel Frankham
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those Romans who perpetrated the rape of the Sabines, for example, did
not work themselves up for the deed by screening _Debbie Does Dallas_,
and the monkish types who burned a million or so witches in the Middle
Ages had almost certainly not come across _Boobs and Buns_ or related
periodicals." (Barbara Ehrenreich)
Mags
OJ THORNTON wrote in message <7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>...
Ah, but you must do other stuff than just study! When I was at uni I also
found myself doing other stuff like travelling (normally in hope and with a
thumb), festivals (I met one old b/f because the police were trying to stop
a festi I was going to), poll tax protests, variously just illegal
ventures....
oh Gods...I'm Sam...
That's not the point. The point is, what do you like reading/watching?
Writing is not just about what you have done, but about what you can
imagine.
And in the meantime, go out and enjoy yourself. Oh, but try not to fall off
Attercliff Edge.
Kate Orman
OJ THORNTON <ojth...@bradford.ac.uk> wrote:
>My problem is that I'm still at the beginning of my life and I
>haven't *done* a great deal, really. I suppose I could try setting a
>Dr. Who novel around a university in the North of England. But why
>depress everybody else?
*grin* It worked for the Brontes and for Jane Austen. Besides, I've never
been to Babylon or Technochtitlan. :-)
OJ THORNTON
Distribution:
Mags (moosife...@geocities.com) wrote:
: OJ THORNTON wrote in message <7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>...
: >My problem is that I'm still at the beginning of my life and I
: >haven't *done* a great deal, really. I suppose I could try setting a
: >Dr. Who novel around a university in the North of England. But why
: >depress everybody else?
: Ah, but you must do other stuff than just study!
Err - write Dr. Who novel proposals? Walk the dog. Play guitar and
double bass (though not usually at the same time). Camping in the
wilderness (well, North Devon actually, but close). Not (for the most
part) Dr. Who material, I'd have thought.
: When I was at uni I also
: found myself doing other stuff like travelling (normally in hope and with a
: thumb),
I've travelled, but not with thumb and in hope, because I never seemed to
have the time for that kind of lark. I had to get on the National
Express bus.
: festivals (I met one old b/f because the police were trying to stop
: a festi I was going to),
Sadly, no, because I understand they cost *money*, which is something I
(as a student whose parents' incomes are *just* above the Grants cutoff
point) do not have. Summer meant finding a job and earning enough to be
able to get a house in September (thankfully, rooms to rent are
exceedingly common in Bradford!)
: poll tax protests
Education tax protests (i.e. against tuition fees and the end of the
student grant). Stood on a picket-line with the University workers
(solidarity forever!). Joined in some of the "Reclaim Mayday"
festivities.
: variously just illegal
: ventures
Not that I can think of. I once ordered alcoholic beverages when I was
all of 2 months under-age, but I don't think I've done anything else illegal.
: oh Gods...I'm Sam...
: That's not the point. The point is, what do you like reading/watching?
Err...Dr. Who?
Actually, I know quite a bit about a lot of things from reading and so
on, and one of those is the scientific revolutions of Galileo and Newton,
and of Darwin. But that's the basis for my next attempt at a PDA, so
I'll say no more...
: Writing is not just about what you have done, but about what you can
: imagine.
Now, there's something I can do. A lot of odd things seems to come my
way, that probably have very ordinary explanations. I choose the wierd
one that involves aliens, global conspiracies, dragons, fairies and anything
that would make life a little bit more colourful than it appears to be.
Hell, I imagine that the attic room I live in at the moment is the
perfect place to construct a Frankenstein monster :-)
: And in the meantime, go out and enjoy yourself.
Natch. At last, someone who doesn't tell me to "take care" when things
turn to this topic!
: but try not to fall off
: Attercliff Edge.
Where's that then?
OJT
Daniel Frankham
><7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> <7itj1d$uft$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>Distribution:
>
>Mags (moosife...@geocities.com) wrote:
>
>: OJ THORNTON wrote in message <7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>...
>
>: >My problem is that I'm still at the beginning of my life and I
>: >haven't *done* a great deal, really. I suppose I could try setting a
>: >Dr. Who novel around a university in the North of England. But why
>: >depress everybody else?
>
>: Ah, but you must do other stuff than just study!
>
>Err - write Dr. Who novel proposals? Walk the dog. Play guitar and
>double bass (though not usually at the same time). Camping in the
>wilderness (well, North Devon actually, but close). Not (for the most
>part) Dr. Who material, I'd have thought.
If people really wrote about what they knew, the world would be full
of incredibly dull novels about people who work in a cubicle for 8
hours a day, watch TV for 6 hours, then sleep for 8 hours, with a few
hours spent in transit, eating, maybe having sex occasionally. On
second thoughts, it'd be full of novels about people who work in a
cubicle 8 hours a day, spend a couple of hours in transit, eating,
occasionally having sex. And six hours trying to write novels.
I think Doctor Who writers could do worse than write about what
they've read. Pastiche rules. My current proposal in progress is
basically "What if Philip K Dick had written a Doctor Who novel". The
best way to be original in Who fiction is to pastiche something that
hasn't been pastiched before. IMHO.
It's also useful to read good novels -- none of this 20th century
stuff either, but great old novels, especially "character" oriented
books (like Dickens') and adventure novels (like Dumas'). I guess it
helps if you like that sort of thing...
Of course, some of this advice might actually be worth something if
I'd ever had anything published :)
OJ THORNTON
Distribution:
Daniel Frankham (dan...@oztek.net.au) wrote:
: On 31 May 1999 11:17:39 GMT, OJ THORNTON wrote:
: ><7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> <7itj1d$uft$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>:
: >Distribution:
: >
: >Mags (moosife...@geocities.com) wrote:
: >
: >: OJ THORNTON wrote in message <7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>...
: >
: >: >My problem is that I'm still at the beginning of my life and I
: >: >haven't *done* a great deal, really. I suppose I could try setting a
: >: >Dr. Who novel around a university in the North of England. But why
: >: >depress everybody else?
: >
: >: Ah, but you must do other stuff than just study!
: >
: >Err - write Dr. Who novel proposals? Walk the dog. Play guitar and
: >double bass (though not usually at the same time). Camping in the
: >wilderness (well, North Devon actually, but close). Not (for the most
: >part) Dr. Who material, I'd have thought.
: If people really wrote about what they knew, the world would be full
: of incredibly dull novels about people who work in a cubicle for 8
: hours a day, watch TV for 6 hours, then sleep for 8 hours, with a few
: hours spent in transit, eating, maybe having sex occasionally. On
You've got two hours for transit and eating each day.
: second thoughts, it'd be full of novels about people who work in a
: cubicle 8 hours a day, spend a couple of hours in transit, eating,
: occasionally having sex. And six hours trying to write novels.
LOL
: I think Doctor Who writers could do worse than write about what
: they've read. Pastiche rules. My current proposal in progress is
: basically "What if Philip K Dick had written a Doctor Who novel". The
: best way to be original in Who fiction is to pastiche something that
: hasn't been pastiched before. IMHO.
Oh, bugger. pastiche is not something I'm good at.
BTW I hope PKD isn't one of those depressing authors who always have
really gloomy futures to look forwards to. I hate that in Dr. Who.
My own next attempt is going to be in the middle of a scientific
revolution (Galileo/Newton/Darwin) but on another planet. My last
attempt turns out to be a pastiche of Patrick Robinson, but without the
right-wing politics. I've still to hear back on it, though (sent it off
just after the new year started). Interestingly, I'd never read any
Patrick Robinson until a few weeks ago - only in Dr. Who could an author
pastiche a style *before* he'd encountered it!
: It's also useful to read good novels -- none of this 20th century
: stuff either, but great old novels, especially "character" oriented
: books (like Dickens') and adventure novels (like Dumas'). I guess it
: helps if you like that sort of thing...
Yes. I have never been able to read Dickens' work. To be honest, I've
never really been able to read most things set in the Victorian age -
costume dramas and the works on which they are based just leave me cold
for the most part.
In any area of literature, I don't read the "classics". I read the
books that I find to be well-written and which work for me. I don't
find anything so great about Dickens.
OJT
Stephen Graves
>revolution (Galileo/Newton/Darwin) but on another planet.
What, like The Ribos Operation? :-)
SG
OJ THORNTON
Distribution:
Stephen Graves (Stephen...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: >: >: OJ THORNTON wrote in message <7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>...
: >
: >My own next attempt is going to be in the middle of a scientific
: >revolution (Galileo/Newton/Darwin) but on another planet.
: What, like The Ribos Operation? :-)
I can claim complete ignorance of that, until...
now, I've checked a brief description on the WWW. My story doesn't look
anything like it (I hope), except that it's a 4th Doctor adventure.
Now I'll have to try to find a novelisation or video of Ribos Operation
just to find out for sure that I'm doing something that's different enough.
Or you could email me details of Ribos' scientific revolution. I do
plan the Doctor to explain to Sarah (for it is she who is his companion)
that such revolutions are common across the galaxy, so the story itself
is what I hope to work, not the setting.
Ho hum
OJT
Daniel Frankham
><7itr4j$ojt$1...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> <375288ca...@loomi.telstra.net>:
>Distribution:
>
>Daniel Frankham (dan...@oztek.net.au) wrote:
>: If people really wrote about what they knew, the world would be full
>: of incredibly dull novels about people who work in a cubicle for 8
>: hours a day, watch TV for 6 hours, then sleep for 8 hours, with a few
>: hours spent in transit, eating, maybe having sex occasionally. On
>
>You've got two hours for transit and eating each day.
Yeah, maybe I should add some time there... I'm a public transport
user :)
>: I think Doctor Who writers could do worse than write about what
>: they've read. Pastiche rules. My current proposal in progress is
>: basically "What if Philip K Dick had written a Doctor Who novel". The
>: best way to be original in Who fiction is to pastiche something that
>: hasn't been pastiched before. IMHO.
>
>Oh, bugger. pastiche is not something I'm good at.
Aw, you probably do it all the time without even realising. Like, any
Doctor Who novel is, to an extent, a pastiche of other Doctor Who
stories. Except for really great and special ones like _Alien Bodies_,
perhaps.
>BTW I hope PKD isn't one of those depressing authors who always have
>really gloomy futures to look forwards to. I hate that in Dr. Who.
He is a bit. But often funny, too :) Strangely enough, his
mainstream novels set in 50s California are a lot bleaker (and less
funny) than his science fiction.
>My own next attempt is going to be in the middle of a scientific
>revolution (Galileo/Newton/Darwin) but on another planet.
Sounds interesting.
>My last
>attempt turns out to be a pastiche of Patrick Robinson, but without the
>right-wing politics. I've still to hear back on it, though (sent it off
>just after the new year started). Interestingly, I'd never read any
>Patrick Robinson until a few weeks ago - only in Dr. Who could an author
>pastiche a style *before* he'd encountered it!
Heh heh. I've discovered in-jokes to stuff I've read, and then
discovered the author had never read it. A lot of reviewers seem to do
that, too...
>: It's also useful to read good novels -- none of this 20th century
>: stuff either, but great old novels, especially "character" oriented
>: books (like Dickens') and adventure novels (like Dumas'). I guess it
>: helps if you like that sort of thing...
>
>Yes. I have never been able to read Dickens' work. To be honest, I've
>never really been able to read most things set in the Victorian age -
>costume dramas and the works on which they are based just leave me cold
>for the most part.
Ack, costume dramas. Nothing like the real thing.
>In any area of literature, I don't read the "classics". I read the
>books that I find to be well-written and which work for me. I don't
>find anything so great about Dickens.
Each to their own, I guess.
Mags
OJ THORNTON wrote in message <7itr4j$ojt$1...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>...
><7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> <7itj1d$uft$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>Distribution:
>
>Mags (moosife...@geocities.com) wrote:
>
>: OJ THORNTON wrote in message <7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>...
>
>: >haven't *done* a great deal, really. I suppose I could try setting a
>: >Dr. Who novel around a university in the North of England. But why
>: >depress everybody else?
>
>
>: Ah, but you must do other stuff than just study!
>
>Err - write Dr. Who novel proposals? Walk the dog. Play guitar and
>double bass (though not usually at the same time). Camping in the
>wilderness (well, North Devon actually, but close). Not (for the most
>part) Dr. Who material, I'd have thought.
Oh yes, N. Devon. Wilderness. <she says from the only town in Devon>
>: When I was at uni I also
>: found myself doing other stuff like travelling (normally in hope and with
a
>: thumb),
>
>I've travelled, but not with thumb and in hope, because I never seemed to
>have the time for that kind of lark. I had to get on the National
>Express bus.
lark? yep, you've never hitched. I wouldnever describe it as a lark. Tiring,
dangerous, mind-numbingly cold and wet in winter and always too sunny in
summer, did I mention dangerous?
>: festivals (I met one old b/f because the police were trying to stop
>: a festi I was going to),
>
>Sadly, no, because I understand they cost *money*,
well, if you go to the legal ones and get in legally, yes. ;-)
<snip>
>
>: That's not the point. The point is, what do you like reading/watching?
>
>Err...Dr. Who?
>
>Actually, I know quite a bit about a lot of things from reading and so
>on, and one of those is the scientific revolutions of Galileo and Newton,
>and of Darwin. But that's the basis for my next attempt at a PDA, so
>I'll say no more...
there, see? You read about something, you write about it. just like essays
but..erm...harder...
<snip>
>
>: And in the meantime, go out and enjoy yourself.
>
>Natch. At last, someone who doesn't tell me to "take care" when things
>turn to this topic!
I just take that as a given.
>: but try not to fall off
>: Attercliff Edge.
>
>Where's that then?
Derbyshire Dales. Went there on a team building weekend course with the NUS.
Our best bit of teamwork involved getting back to the hostel which was at
the top of a cliff (might not have been Attercliff, but it was that way)
from the pub. In the pitch dark, not knowing where we were going. Ver' ver'
drun' . Not a mind-blowing experience but let's change that little path to a
space station serviceway with the power cut, the drunken students to a bunch
of nervous survivors of oooooh, something 'orrible...and the person who led
us up the cliff into Benny...
Stephen Graves
OJ THORNTON wrote in message <7iu6it$pl3$2...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>...
><7iu373$p7n$1...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>
<7iu4qf$g8j$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>:
>Distribution:
>
>Stephen Graves (Stephen...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>: >: >: OJ THORNTON wrote in message
<7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>...
>: >
>: >revolution (Galileo/Newton/Darwin) but on another planet.
>
>
>I can claim complete ignorance of that, until...
>
>now, I've checked a brief description on the WWW. My story doesn't look
>anything like it (I hope), except that it's a 4th Doctor adventure.
>
>Now I'll have to try to find a novelisation or video of Ribos Operation
>just to find out for sure that I'm doing something that's different enough.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha..... ;-) Don't let it bother you. If the story's good enough,
I reckon they'll take it. After all, look at the number of books in the
current Who range that bear more than a passing similarity to earlier
stories...
I'm planning on writing a submission after my exams (which I should be
revising for now...). It's set in Renaissance Florence, and is all about
stuff like alchemy and raising the devil actually *working.* The setting's
probably going to make people arch their eyebrows and say "Masque of
Mandragora" knowingly, but what the hell...
Seriously, IIRC, the only major point about Ribos Operation that bears much
similarity to your proposal, AFAIK (cause I havent read it :-) is the
character of Binro, who questions the accepted truths of science in much the
same way as Galileo et al.
Good luck!
SG
ma...@shoutmag.demon.co.uk
regime, - and I can't disagree that, basically, that's what you have
to do - I feel just a little miffed (and discouraged), and can
sympathise with Dr Evil several posts back, about the delay in
receiving any kind of feedback: the Beeb have three submissions of
mine (one a resubmission) that they've had for 10 months, 9 months and
7 months respectively. It was only in March, after I sent duplicate
copies of all three, that Jac Rayner kindly emailed me to say they'd
received them.
Kate's given me some heartwarming advice about all this, but it is
SOOOO disheartening to wait for almost a year to receive the Tickbox
of Death sheet.
And I have to disagree with Kate (apologies if it wasn't Kate that
said it) about reading the feedback and acting on it: when all you get
are ticks in boxes for 'Style shows promise' and 'Some good ideas but
plot doesn't support them'.
What are you supposed to do with that? Admittedly, there was also a
handwritten note with the first submission of the resubmitted (and 10
months absent) one saying: 'The Doctor is a little peripheral to the
plot', but how is a newbie author to use these tiny morsels of
feedback to better her or his next submission? And, as I suspect, if I
get a similar TOD sheet when HALFLIFE is returned again, almost a year
will have gone by and I'll be none-the-wiser.
Oh dear, the Black Dog's comingfor me again... :)
Sorry for sounding so negative, but it doesn't half pour a bathful of
water on your creative fires: the next three submissions are sitting
on my computer, all two-thirds finished; and I haven't a clue whether
I'm getting closer to what the Beeb want or not.
And as numerous posters have commented, it does, sometimes, seem like
the Beeb would rather go for a substandard potboiler of a story from
an author who can churn it out on time than to take a chance helping a
new - and potentially exciting writer (not me, obviously, but several
of the who_ink posters) out.
Is it just that there aren't enough staff at the Beeb to acually DO
that, and using 'tried and trusted writers' is like leaving the DW
book dept on autopilot??
Mark Evans
> In article <7ipojd$ahc$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Me:
>>>"The Pinocchio Virus",
>>What was that about, then? Nanoviral weapons that make your nose grow when
>>you lie? Could spell doom for politicians across the world...
> For a hint, check out SLEEPY, page 150. :-)
Or could it be the sentence which spans pp 150 & 151 which
really gives it away.
Mark Evans
> I disagree; both these professions are ones in which you're placing your own
> health, or that of someone else, at risk. Since when was being a Who author
> a life-threatening occupation? :-)
Maybe you missed Mr Stone's post...
Dr. Evil
Hiya Mark. Is that the Shout magazine in Liverpool? I
thought it had finished.
> As someone who is trying to follow the 'Write. Submit. Write. Submit'
> regime, - and I can't disagree that, basically, that's what you have
> to do - I feel just a little miffed (and discouraged), and can
> sympathise with Dr Evil several posts back, about the delay in
> receiving any kind of feedback: the Beeb have three submissions of
> mine (one a resubmission) that they've had for 10 months, 9 months and
> 7 months respectively. It was only in March, after I sent duplicate
> copies of all three, that Jac Rayner kindly emailed me to say they'd
> received them.
Oo, baby. I know where you're coming from here. Christ,
isn't the wait just so bloody awful? I wish I had something
else in my life to distract me. For what it's worth, I've
also been submitting other stuff to, shall we say, more
recognised publishers. It almost blew me away when they
reject you within two *weeks*. Barely time to get your hopes
up.
> Kate's given me some heartwarming advice about all this, but it is
> SOOOO disheartening to wait for almost a year to receive the Tickbox
> of Death sheet.
Haven't had one of them yet, but I've heard of them. They're
not terribly inspiring are they? Although it's hard to see
what else they can do really.
> And I have to disagree with Kate (apologies if it wasn't Kate that
> said it) about reading the feedback and acting on it: when all you get
> are ticks in boxes for 'Style shows promise' and 'Some good ideas but
> plot doesn't support them'.
I think it was Kate. It certainly sounds like her.
> What are you supposed to do with that? Admittedly, there was also a
> handwritten note with the first submission of the resubmitted (and 10
> months absent) one saying: 'The Doctor is a little peripheral to the
> plot', but how is a newbie author to use these tiny morsels of
> feedback to better her or his next submission? And, as I suspect, if I
> get a similar TOD sheet when HALFLIFE is returned again, almost a year
> will have gone by and I'll be none-the-wiser.
If I can give you the benefits of some of my (very limited)
experience: When I start a submission, I try to make each
one as different as possible from the one before. Therefore,
you can have all bases covered and get a sort of median
average, when comparing the rejection letters, of what they
want. And writing in such different ways shows how versatile
you can be as well.
When I got rejected, I posted the sample (first) chapter on
alt.drwho.creative and got lots of helpful feedback - from
out and out praise (honest!) to serious dissections of your
faults. Remember, the odd author is also there, and they're
usually willing to chip in as well - they know what it's all
about after all.
Although you probably put the most work into your synopsis,
I believe that it's the sample chapter that will be paid the
most attention to, so it would be wise to just post that and
not bog it down with peripheral plot stuff. Besides, as
Kate - that eternal fount of wisdom - said: if you do, one
day, get accepted you can always cannibalise ideas from
previous rejections.
I've also been getting some help via e-mail. Believe me, you
can't have enough opinions about your stuff. If you like,
please send me your rejection (and anything you've got lined
up, if you like) and I'll take a shufty.
> Oh dear, the Black Dog's coming for me again... :)
Hey, hey baby, say the way you move, gonna make you sweat,
gonna make you groove.
> Sorry for sounding so negative, but it doesn't half pour a bathful of
> water on your creative fires: the next three submissions are sitting
> on my computer, all two-thirds finished; and I haven't a clue whether
> I'm getting closer to what the Beeb want or not.
I've got two almost ready to go as well, but I don't want to
send them without hearing something about the three sitting
on the slushpile. We sound in remarkably similar positions;
are you sure you're not me?
> And as numerous posters have commented, it does, sometimes, seem like
> the Beeb would rather go for a substandard potboiler of a story from
> an author who can churn it out on time than to take a chance helping a
> new - and potentially exciting writer (not me, obviously, but several
> of the who_ink posters) out.
I really do hope that the new authors haven't dried up at
the beeb, and that there are a few decent authors just
a-waiting to be discovered. It would certainly up my
interest. Those exciting new talents at Virgin were one of
the reasons the whole book thing got me so excited about
Doctor Who again. I dunno why, but I just haven't been able
to get as excited about a new Paul Cornell novel as I once
did.
> Is it just that there aren't enough staff at the Beeb to acually DO
> that, and using 'tried and trusted writers' is like leaving the DW
> book dept on autopilot??
Guessing wildly, but I think you may be right. 'Tis a large
organisation, the beeb.
Phew, it does sound remarkably like I know what I'm talking
about. believe me, I don't - these are all speculations and
guesses. But if they're in any way helpful... I aim to
please.
--
dr-...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk
If you want a friend, feed any animal
Kate Orman
<ma...@shoutmag.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And I have to disagree with Kate (apologies if it wasn't Kate that
>said it) about reading the feedback and acting on it: when all you get
>are ticks in boxes for 'Style shows promise' and 'Some good ideas but
>plot doesn't support them'.
>What are you supposed to do with that?
Feel encouraged!
>Admittedly, there was also a
>handwritten note with the first submission of the resubmitted (and 10
>months absent) one saying: 'The Doctor is a little peripheral to the
>plot', but how is a newbie author to use these tiny morsels of
>feedback to better her or his next submission? And, as I suspect, if I
>get a similar TOD sheet when HALFLIFE is returned again, almost a year
>will have gone by and I'll be none-the-wiser.
The checklist is pretty vague. But it's worth keeping in mind that a
standard publisher's rejection slip says "We can't use this, goodbye" -
you get no feedback whatsoever.
It's not up to the BBC to teach you how to write. If their comments are
vague, supplement them with advice from how-to-write books and Web pages,
a writers' circle, and so on. If your plot isn't strong enough to support
your ideas, read up on how to plot. (You can do your own analysis - watch
a favourite movie or DW episode, and write down the major plot events!)
Take a good, hard look at the rejected proposal. Can you name three ways
in which, say, you could make the Doctor less peripheral to the plot?
(Does he arrive promptly? How do his actions change things - is he just
observing events? Is another character the real hero?) Watch a favourite
TV story for hints on getting and keeping the Doctor and companions
involved (or in some instances, how *not* to do it! :-)
I know some hopeful authors have had long, frustrating waits for a
response - which I have no doubt is the result of BBC understaffing! If
you don't get an acknowledgement letter after a couple of months, send a
polite inquiry letter. (Just one is enough! :-) In the meantime, keep
working on your writing - don't wait to hear from the BBC!
Jack Beven
Kate Orman wrote:
> I have a feeling that, underlying this discussion, there's the
> lingering resentment that new writers can't pitch for the Eighth
> Doctor line. It's unfair. It insults untried writers.
>
> There are a number of problems with this attitude.
>
> One is that the BBC is running a business, not a competition. They
> don't HAVE to consider unsolicited submissions AT ALL. Fairness
> doesn't come into it - they're doing would-be writers a favour.
Well, since the BBC opened the lines to unsolicited submissions,
IMHO closing even one of them wasn't fair, especially without warning.
However, we had that discussion last August.
IMHO the more important thing is the decision and the ensuing
discussions drove a wedge of mistrust between the established writers
and the wannabees. With all due respects to Jon, Kate, Lance, etc,
I'm not sure that you have fully grapsed that either last August or
now. Telling people to keep trying will only go so far to decrease
the mistrust.
I see a simple bottom line here: A group that says it's open to all
can't keep sending back "membership rejected" messages indefinitely.
If it does, people simply won't believe it's truly open regardless of
what the members say.
> I'm sure you remember Steve Cole's announcement:
>
> "...the Short Trips series in particular has benefited from new
> authors, a trend I hope shall continue.
Actually, Kate, this comment rather confuses me. Aside from the
short story contest winner, is there *any* BBC books DW author who
was unpublished before publishing (or being commissioned for) a BBC
DW story. I'm under the impression that *all* of them were published
elsewhere before their DW stories.
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
http://people.delphi.com/jbeven/ jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my
employers...
Jack Beven
[snip]
> If the editors felt that way, do you really think they'd still bother
> reading through umpteen slushpile novels, or running a competition to
> ensure an unpublished writer got into the short-story collections?
Could you tell me? I can interpret the short story contest any
number of ways, including "We don't have the time to search through
the slushpile, so we'll do it this way" to "This is a good way to
get help winnowing through the submissions" to "This should help
silence the criticism about the lack of newbies". What is the
correct interpretation?
> > Also, IIRC didn't Virgin put their trust in someone with no
> >experience, like Kate? :-)
>
> At the time, Virgin didn't trust new authors to play with old
> monsters. The only old-monster stories, like "Blood Heat" and
> "Iceberg", were in the hands of established Virgin writers. Kate
> followed the guidelines, and got in on the merits of her own
> storytelling -- without having to transgress the Rules. There's
> nothing to stop anyone else who can write something as good as
> "Left-Handed Hummingbird" from doing the same.
Except for one thing, which was the original point of the arguement
IIRC: Would the current editorial regime accept such a book from an
unpublished author? To the best of my ability to tell, Steve and
Ben (for whatever reason) haven't proved yet that they would.
Jack Beven
>
> In article <374E3313...@mindspring.com>,
>
> > Kate, while you are undoubtedly correct about how many of the
> >submissions are bad, what if the newbies are actually right about
> >the system being stacked against them? That would mean that all
> >of their time, energy, effort, talent, and persistence would be
> >wasted, wouldn't it?
>
> You seem to be suggesting that there are hurdles for newbies over and
> above being obliged to submit only PDAs and short stories. Do others
> concur? What's the evidence?
See below.
> > You've consistently preached about how the newbies should keep
> >trying, and IMHO that's good. However, at the risk of pointing out
> >the obvious, you and the other authors aren't necessarily unbiased
> >observers to those who are trying to publish DW stories, or even
> >to someone like me who isn't trying. Is there any *objective*
> >evidence that you or the other authors could provide to show the
> >newbies that the deck isn't really stacked against them?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> For one thing, there's no wholly objective way of comparing one
> proposal with another. One of the biggest problem for hopeful authors
> is that it's very difficult to look at your own work with a critical
> eye. (It's brilliant! How could they reject it? It must be
> prejudice!)
Well, first of all, I usually don't think my scientific writing is
all that good. That's what happens when is a piece of work you put
a lot of time and effort into (i.e., my Masters thesis and Doctoral
dissertation) get shot down in flames.
Second, the point I was trying to make is that editors/reviewers
can be biased against certain authors/classes of writers/ideas. It
happens fairly often in my field. If the BBC editorial staff for
whatever reason doesn't believe that newbies can write a good story,
they probably won't see anything more than bad stories in the
submissions. Thus, the wannabees would be wasting their time
fighting a bias.
Is this truly the case? The available evidence hardly proves it.
The problem is, IMHO the available evidence hardly *disproves* it
either. That's why I was asking you for more evidence.
Where *do* Steve Cole/Ben Dunn/etc stand on this? Are they gung ho
looking for unpublished authors? Do they just go through the motions?
Are they somewhere in between? Would-be writers would like to know!
Kafenken
> And as numerous posters have commented, it does, sometimes,
> seem like the Beeb would rather go for a substandard potboiler of
> a story from an author who can churn it out on time
I wouldn't mind that, but the two 8DAs commissioned from first-time novelists
also struck me as substandard potboilers. Longest Day is just awful and you
all know my opinions of Janus Conjunction...
As for advice from friends, bear in mind that even John Peel has plenty of
chums congratulating him on his great work when he finishes his latest Dalek
opus. Take it all, good and bad, with a pinch of salt - but remember that in
another sense all readers are right. If someone doesn't like what you've
written, that's a symptom of something.
If I can briefly speak from personal experience, one thing that taught me loads
was attempting a couple of proposals with co-writers. I just approached 'em
and asked. Hey, the worst that can happen is that they say no...
Finn Clark.
Alden Bates
our society by typing:
> Well, since the BBC opened the lines to unsolicited submissions,
>IMHO closing even one of them wasn't fair, especially without warning.
>However, we had that discussion last August.
I think it's all terribly amusing. I mean, aren't most of BBC's best
writers the results of unsolicited submissions?
Alden.
ma...@shoutmag.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Cheers Kate
It's always nice to get words of encouragement, especially from an
established author, but sadly, I've already been through the steps you
suggest for the resubmission of HALFLIFE. It's the having to wait
over ten months to find out if I'm doing it right that kills! How long
can it take them to scan through it and says: 'Hmph! It's as bad as
his first one! (Nor nearly as bad as the second one, though!!)'?
I suspect it's something to do with the sense of closure that getting
a rejection slip gives you: you can move on. Like the funeral of a
friend, it's the point that clearly separates the past from the
future. Like waiting to be dumped by a partner - until it actually
happens, you can't move on in life. In some ways, if I received
rejections from the Beeb for all three submissions tomorrow, I'd be
happier than hearing nothing for another two months.
Ho hum... the life of a yet-to-be-published-bod... :)
cheers m'dear!
PS Kate - I just got my partner to (grudgingly!!) read his first ever
DW book. And guess which one I recommended to him - SEEING I. And to
my utter amazement, he really rather enjoyed it!!!! What was even
nicer was that he thought my prose skills were (roughly!!) on a par
with yours - which either makes me wonderful, or, conversely, makes
you awful!! I think I know which one I'd like to go with!!!
(Alternatively, it makes him a lying bastard, but I think he's too
honest for that :))
tata
Mark
xx
Jonathan Blum
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> At the time, Virgin didn't trust new authors to play with old
>> monsters. The only old-monster stories, like "Blood Heat" and
>> "Iceberg", were in the hands of established Virgin writers. Kate
>> followed the guidelines, and got in on the merits of her own
>> storytelling -- without having to transgress the Rules. There's
>> nothing to stop anyone else who can write something as good as
>> "Left-Handed Hummingbird" from doing the same.
> Except for one thing, which was the original point of the arguement
>IIRC: Would the current editorial regime accept such a book from an
>unpublished author? To the best of my ability to tell, Steve and
>Ben (for whatever reason) haven't proved yet that they would.
You asked in another message if any of the Beeb books had been by
previously unpublished authors. The answer is yes. AFAIK, Mike Collier
and Trevor Baxendale had never been published before; neither had (about)
three of the Short Trips writers (some of the bios are ambiguous). And
that's not counting newbie co-authors like me and Jeremy Hoad.
Does the fact that they've done it count as evidence that they'd do it?
:-)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[re... once again... are the Beeb editors biased against newbies?]
> Is this truly the case? The available evidence hardly proves it.
>The problem is, IMHO the available evidence hardly *disproves* it
>either. That's why I was asking you for more evidence.
The available evidence also hardly disproves the hypothesis that Steve
Cole is in fact a Zargoid wearing a human skin as a disguise. (If you
squint you can almost see the zipper.)
Frankly, it's ridiculous to expect us to prove a negative in this case.
I think the only evidence that will "disprove" allegations of bias is when
more newbie authors turn up -- remember, they've only commissioned about
six months' worth of books since the new policy was announced. Given the
fact that about 1% of Virgin's slushpile submissions were usable, and the
Beeb is apparently getting fewer submissions than Virgin did, it's bound
to be a while.
> Where *do* Steve Cole/Ben Dunn/etc stand on this? Are they gung ho
>looking for unpublished authors? Do they just go through the motions?
Believe me, if Steve and company didn't _want_ to find new authors, they
wouldn't be bothering to slog through all these submissions. It'd be a
hell of a lot of work just for motion-going purposes. They were certainly
under no obligation to "go through the motion" of holding a whole
short-story contest to ensure a new author got in.
Something else that seems to be forgotten is that if Steve Cole wasn't
interested in the slushpile, he would have just kept it closed. Virgin
and the Beeb both closed their lines to outside submissions at the time of
the license changeover. The batch of books commissioned by Nuala Buffini
were by invitation only. Steve _reopened_ the door for unsolicited
submissions. Virgin still hasn't. For that matter, Big Finish hasn't.
Yet some people seem to keep knocking the people who are giving new
authors more of a chance than anyone else in this game does.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Kate Orman
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I see a simple bottom line here: A group that says it's open to all
>can't keep sending back "membership rejected" messages indefinitely.
>If it does, people simply won't believe it's truly open regardless of
>what the members say.
Now that's *extremely* interesting, especially in the light of
descriptions of the writers' mailing list as an "exclusive gentlemen's
club" and even a "mafia".
Is this really about trying to break into professional publishing? Or is
it - for some fans, anyway - about feeling snubbed because you're not a
member of a group? Is it about creativity, or jealousy?
OJ THORNTON
Distribution:
ma...@shoutmag.demon.co.uk wrote:
: And I have to disagree with Kate (apologies if it wasn't Kate that
: said it) about reading the feedback and acting on it: when all you get
: are ticks in boxes for 'Style shows promise' and 'Some good ideas but
: plot doesn't support them'.
: What are you supposed to do with that?
What I do with it is re-read what I sent off, and ask if I can see what
the ticks mean. Basically, three, five, ten months gives you a chance
to forget what it was like writing the story - you now have a clear mind
with which to read it. That way, you see much better what's wrong
(and what's right) with it.
The other thing is to keep giving copies of the latest attempt to friends
and family, and getting their feedback on it.
OJ THORNTON
Distribution:
Dr. Evil (dr-...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:
: ma...@shoutmag.demon.co.uk wrote:
: Hiya Mark. Is that the Shout magazine in Liverpool? I
: thought it had finished.
: > As someone who is trying to follow the 'Write. Submit. Write. Submit'
: > regime, - and I can't disagree that, basically, that's what you have
: > to do - I feel just a little miffed (and discouraged), and can
: > sympathise with Dr Evil several posts back, about the delay in
: > receiving any kind of feedback: the Beeb have three submissions of
: > mine (one a resubmission) that they've had for 10 months, 9 months and
: > 7 months respectively. It was only in March, after I sent duplicate
: > copies of all three, that Jac Rayner kindly emailed me to say they'd
: > received them.
: Oo, baby. I know where you're coming from here. Christ,
: isn't the wait just so bloody awful? I wish I had something
: else in my life to distract me. For what it's worth, I've
: also been submitting other stuff to, shall we say, more
: recognised publishers. It almost blew me away when they
: reject you within two *weeks*. Barely time to get your hopes
: up.
If you go to an agent, you're more likely to be successful with the other
publishers. Although all agents (estate, theatrical, music, literary
etc etc) are leeches who basically do no work at all (since they only
accept artists/houses they think will sell themselves) in the literary
world it is a sad fact that most publishing houses will only accept a
book that's already backed by an agent (or so I've been reliably
informed). The good thing is that it is one aspect of the agent's job to
give you feedback.
:
: > Kate's given me some heartwarming advice about all this, but it is
: > SOOOO disheartening to wait for almost a year to receive the Tickbox
: > of Death sheet.
: Haven't had one of them yet, but I've heard of them. They're
: not terribly inspiring are they? Although it's hard to see
: what else they can do really.
It always reminds me of mid-term report cards at school. A checklist to
say you're doing fine, and a little comment at the bottom. I think it
would be a lot better if they would put a few marks in the margin on the
actual manuscript you've sent them - simple ticks, question-marks or
crosses at different points in your text could be a much better help to
what they think works and doesn't work.
But this is again based on the teacher analogy, and as Kate says, it
isn't their job to teach you.
: When I got rejected, I posted the sample (first) chapter on
: alt.drwho.creative and got lots of helpful feedback - from
: out and out praise (honest!) to serious dissections of your
: faults. Remember, the odd author is also there, and they're
: usually willing to chip in as well - they know what it's all
: about after all.
I have to say, for me, it's incredibly daunting to discuss my work onthe
internet. I don't know you, so I suppose I know "nasty" comments will
be honest and not malicious, but at the same time not knowing the people
who'll read this or how they might react is still too nerve-wracking for me.
However, the need for other people's feedback is there, so I make sure I
find somebody (fan or otherwise) to read it and see if it just makes a
good story. If it's a good story in general (regardless of being Who or
otherwise) then I figure I must be on the right tracks.
OJT
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
OJ THORNTON <ojth...@bradford.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7j0r09$6hr$2...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk...
> I have to say, for me, it's incredibly daunting to discuss my work
onthe
> internet. I don't know you, so I suppose I know "nasty" comments
will
> be honest and not malicious, but at the same time not knowing the
people
> who'll read this or how they might react is still too nerve-wracking
for me.
Is it better to have your rejected manuscript "savaged" by
alt.drwho.creative, or your published-but-dull book "savaged" by the
paying public/professional critics?
[Who am I kidding? the latter, obviously - at least you got paid!]
Ozzy
Stephen Graves
Kate Orman wrote in message <7j0ioh$am3$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
>In article <375369ED...@mindspring.com>,
>Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I see a simple bottom line here: A group that says it's open to all
>>can't keep sending back "membership rejected" messages indefinitely.
>>If it does, people simply won't believe it's truly open regardless of
>>what the members say.
>
>Now that's *extremely* interesting, especially in the light of
>descriptions of the writers' mailing list as an "exclusive gentlemen's
>club" and even a "mafia".
I was joking! I just had this vision of Blum, Miles, McIntee et al huffing
and puffing on their pipes and saying "What shall we do to Paul McGann
next?"
>Is this really about trying to break into professional publishing? Or is
>it - for some fans, anyway - about feeling snubbed because you're not a
>member of a group? Is it about creativity, or jealousy?
A bit of both, I imagine; part of the attraction of the EDAs, as Steve Cole
said in that DWM article, is that you get to decide the direction of the
current Doctor, forging ahead into the future (if you'll excuse the flowery
language :-) whereas the PDAs are all one-offs. The newbies want to be a
part of that creative process, and are jealous because they're being cut out
of it. There's also, I think, the sense that "If John Peel can get Legacy of
the Daleks published, why the hell can't I get my literary epic in?" I
imagine it's something to do with John Peel being reliable, or something,
but it still rankles a little. God, I hope he's not reading this; the poor
bugger's suffered enough as it is. Actually, I quite liked LotD, but I don't
think it explored its full potential. But that's something for another
thread...
Maybe if there was a linked story arc of PDAs... How about we newbies work
out an arc for ourselves, and submit it as a sort of "group piece" with each
of us tackling one part? Gotta be worth a try...
SG
ma...@shoutmag.demon.co.uk
<Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Maybe if there was a linked story arc of PDAs... How about we newbies work
>out an arc for ourselves, and submit it as a sort of "group piece" with each
>of us tackling one part? Gotta be worth a try...
>
>SG
>
>
Sounds good to me.
Personally, I've not (yet) felt confident to try a PaulDoc submission
- even before the change in submissions policy. All my submissions
have been past Docs.
Although I can see why some wannabe-writers were pissed off at the
change in policy, it personally doesn't bother me TOO much, and I can
see why the Beeb did it.
I must admit, though, I would have been a whole lot happier if the
Beeb had said that only existing writers or 'writers by invitation'
could write for PaulDoc - AND that the reverse would apply to the
pastDocs range: only NEW writers could write for that. Now that would
have been a good idea (obviously it would probably not have worked in
practice!!), but it might have made some of the existing writers work
that little bit harder on their submissions in order to get accepted!!
Maybe then they would have some idea of how some newbie writers felt
when they heard the news!!
Many people have complained that writing for the pastDocs range is
limiting in that they can't 'evolve' the Doctor etc etc. True, to a
degree, but there's still lots you can do with the pastDocs. In almost
all the submissions I've made, there have been hints of things in the
past that we've never heard about (ripe for me or another author to
pick up on at some point), or little unfinished snippets that could,
likewise, be picked up in the future. Continuity doesn't ALWAYS have
to hark back to what we've seen on TV: it is possible to 'link' the
pastDocs books with their own web of interesting 'backstory' even if
you can't make huge, sweeping character changes to the Doctor himself.
Jon Miller
> What are you supposed to do with that? Admittedly, there was also a
> handwritten note with the first submission of the resubmitted (and 10
> months absent) one saying: 'The Doctor is a little peripheral to the
> plot', but how is a newbie author to use these tiny morsels of
> feedback to better her or his next submission?
I think the trick is to understand that a proposal gets rejected for many
reasons, and the tickbox is a guide to its major flaws, but is not a
complete guide to why it was rejected.
The way to find out how you can correct a proposal for sending off in the
future is to first read through it yourself - you'll be surprised how
many flaws that just *were not there* when you sent it off, will now be
quickly apparent.
Secondly, get as many people as you can to read it. It doesn't have to
be Who fans (although this helps), as long as people understand the basic
concept behind the range.
If there are no flaws you can see, and everyone else says it's perfect
(remember it can't be 'quite good', it's got to be great) then point
people to the check list and say (for example) 'the BBC say my
characterisation is weak.' Chances are, whoever you have got to read
through the proposal will say 'yeah, I can see that, although I was so
impressed with the plot, that didn't bother me too much'. Or something.
I really do think getting the opinions of others is the key to writing a
good proposal. Speaking personally, I know that mine have been much
better since I've started to filter them through others before sending
them off. It's much more pleasant for a mate to tell you an idea is
rubbish than a letter.
Jon.
OJ THORNTON
Distribution:
ma...@shoutmag.demon.co.uk wrote:
: On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:16:56 +0100, "Stephen Graves"
: <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >Maybe if there was a linked story arc of PDAs... How about we newbies work
: >out an arc for ourselves, and submit it as a sort of "group piece" with each
: >of us tackling one part? Gotta be worth a try...
: >
: Sounds good to me.
I like this idea also.
: Many people have complained that writing for the pastDocs range is
: limiting in that they can't 'evolve' the Doctor etc etc. True, to a
: degree, but there's still lots you can do with the pastDocs. In almost
: all the submissions I've made, there have been hints of things in the
: past that we've never heard about (ripe for me or another author to
: pick up on at some point), or little unfinished snippets that could,
: likewise, be picked up in the future. Continuity doesn't ALWAYS have
: to hark back to what we've seen on TV: it is possible to 'link' the
: pastDocs books with their own web of interesting 'backstory' even if
: you can't make huge, sweeping character changes to the Doctor himself.
Here's how the "multiDoc story arc" idea mentioned above might work:
By nominating one author to do a single Doctor, fill out as many Doctors
as can be reasonably fitted into the story arc (maximum 7 Doctors=maximum
of seven authors/novels, presumably).
A linking theme is agreed upon by the seven authors, such as an ancient
threat that will resurface each time, or a quest of some kind that will
need to be pieced together throughout the Doctor's life. The idea I
like is that one aspect of the ancient threat/quest is revealed at a
time, and how each of them is related to the others is only revealed later.
It need not be instantly clear that the novels are linked. In fact, it
would be advantageous to have them acceptable as stand-alone novels as well.
Each time, there must be a subtly related immediate threat which is
resolved, and a greater, clandestine threat that is merely delayed.
OJT
Corey Klemow
> There's also, I think, the sense that "If John Peel can get Legacy of
> the Daleks published, why the hell can't I get my literary epic in?" I
> imagine it's something to do with John Peel being reliable, or something,
> but it still rankles a little. God, I hope he's not reading this; the poor
> bugger's suffered enough as it is. Actually, I quite liked LotD, but I don't
> think it explored its full potential. But that's something for another
> thread...
Both of John Peel's Dalek books were commssioned simultaneously by Nuala
Buffini, not Stephen Cole. Cole inherited a contractual obligation to find a
place for "Legacy" on the schedule. If I recall certain statements he's made
correctly, he personally wouldn't have been inclined to commission those books
in the first place (or "The Eight Doctors", for that matter).
ma...@shoutmag.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Sounds like a nice idea, but I'm not sure it would work in practice.
For a start, as we've seen, newbie authors stand an almost zilch
chance of being accepted. Multiply this 'almost zilch' by the number
of authors in the series (assuming that ALL the books were needed to
actually make the final one work) and you have a very zilchy zilch. I
really can't see the Beeb going for this - not unless they had the
entire story arc, samples, synopses there in front of them
simultaneously, and they were all BLOODY DAMNED GOOD!!
I think many would-be authors (including myself) probably don't have
the time to spend on 'another' novel submission which, depending on
how reliant it was on the overarching story arc, might stand less
chance of being accepted than a straightforward standalone.
I can see it possibly working if it were simply a case of 'working in'
a few bits into several previously standalone submissions - as long as
those bits - if not followed through at some point - didn't leave
readers pissed off at a lack of conclusion to it.
Interesting, and if, suddenly, Ben Dunn phoned five of us newbies up
one morning and said: 'Write for the Beeb, please!' then it might be
worth thinking about at that stage.
Other than that, I can see it as an interesting exercise in who_ink or
rad.creative, but that's about it. Am I being an overly-pessimistic
spoilsport??? Probably!!
hugs
xxx
ma...@shoutmag.demon.co.uk
wrote:
>
>The way to find out how you can correct a proposal for sending off in the
>future is to first read through it yourself - you'll be surprised how
>many flaws that just *were not there* when you sent it off, will now be
>quickly apparent.
>
>Secondly, get as many people as you can to read it. It doesn't have to
>be Who fans (although this helps), as long as people understand the basic
>concept behind the range.
>
>If there are no flaws you can see, and everyone else says it's perfect
>(remember it can't be 'quite good', it's got to be great) then point
>people to the check list and say (for example) 'the BBC say my
>characterisation is weak.' Chances are, whoever you have got to read
>through the proposal will say 'yeah, I can see that, although I was so
>impressed with the plot, that didn't bother me too much'. Or something.
>
>I really do think getting the opinions of others is the key to writing a
>good proposal. Speaking personally, I know that mine have been much
>better since I've started to filter them through others before sending
>them off. It's much more pleasant for a mate to tell you an idea is
>rubbish than a letter.
>
>Jon.
Ahh so true.
But the problem is, what happens after you've shown it to your mates,
your partner (who is an avid and critical reader of 'real' books) and
they point out some flaws that you then correct.
They reread it and - having read some DW books - say: 'That's
brilliant! It's as good as some of the published ones!!'
What then?
The readers etc at the Beeb obviously have different criteria to the
readers and to your friends and loved ones.
Your friends may like good characters, or good ideas, or good plot.
The Beeb may like them too (although having read some of the cack that
they've published, I wouldn't be too sure!!); but, above all, the Beeb
wants books that SELL!!
So if, say, THE ANUS CONJUNCTION (which, apparently, has been very
popular) is the kind of book the Beeb want, then they won't want much
of my stuff (probably!!).
It seems to me (and this is, very definitely IMO, although I've read
similar views) that the Beeb books by new authors have been, on the
whole, fairly bad: TAC, THE LONGEST DAY etc. Wheras the good ones are
by established authors...
This could mean that the good authors are good because they've had
time to hone their skills, to practice, or that the Beeb are, for some
perverse reason, commissioning crap from newbies!
But why are the Beeb commissioning rubbish like TAC and TLD at all? I
can't believe that they don't have better submissions - from old OR
new writers - sat waiting in the wings.
Am I just so out of touch with what the DW-buying public and the Beeb
are looking for??? (Please say no!!!!)
hugs
xxx
Graeme Burk
kor...@zipper.zip.com.au (Kate Orman) wrote:
> In article <374E3313...@mindspring.com>,
>
> > Kate, while you are undoubtedly correct about how many of the
> >submissions are bad, what if the newbies are actually right about
> >the system being stacked against them? That would mean that all
> >of their time, energy, effort, talent, and persistence would be
> >wasted, wouldn't it?
>
> You seem to be suggesting that there are hurdles for newbies over and
> above being obliged to submit only PDAs and short stories. Do others
> concur? What's the evidence?
Speaking as a recent BBC Book Rejectee, who made it to the honest-to-
goodness real communique from Steve Cole category, the only real
downside is the length of time it takes. The first hurdle, where most
rejections happen (and you get a checklist) is about 3-4 months.
However if you're lucky enough to get past that stage it's a lot longer.
My PDA submission took nearly *14 months* before it was ultimately
turned down. And that's not because people were earnestly poring over it
for that amount of time either. There's a huge backlog of unsolicited
work for more serious consideration.
I don't say this in any way to slag off Steve or any of the other
people, because the people at BBC books are working as fast and as
hard as they can, and I think they're good at what they do. And they
did say some very nice things about my writing while also giving some
very difficult to hear, but very necessary, structural criticisms of my
work.
Virgin's turnaround time for seriously considered books was, ISTR,
around 10-11 months, but they also had a dedicated editor to the line.
With the recent restructuring at BBC Books it means a longer wait. Which
means that learning from your previous submissions could take a while...
Is this a hurdle? No. But it does mean that if you're serious about
what you're doing, you need to have a lot of patience...
Graeme Burk
Working his way back to the saddle...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Trina L. Short
wrote:
>"Madness in his Method", in which Chris and Roz are turned into children,
>and time goes backward at the end and brings everyone back to life. :-P
And you came up with this before or after the telemovie? :)
--trinalin
©1999 ACME Page Fillers, Inc.
http://www.pagefillers.com
Philip Craggs
Daniel Frankham wrote:
> On 31 May 1999 11:17:39 GMT, OJ THORNTON wrote:
> ><7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> <7itj1d$uft$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>:
> >Distribution:
> >
> >Mags (moosife...@geocities.com) wrote:
> >
> >: OJ THORNTON wrote in message <7irjme$b2o$6...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>...
> >
> >: >My problem is that I'm still at the beginning of my life and I
> >: >haven't *done* a great deal, really. I suppose I could try setting a
> >: >Dr. Who novel around a university in the North of England. But why
> >: >depress everybody else?
> >
> >: Ah, but you must do other stuff than just study!
> >
> >Err - write Dr. Who novel proposals? Walk the dog. Play guitar and
> >double bass (though not usually at the same time). Camping in the
> >wilderness (well, North Devon actually, but close). Not (for the most
> >part) Dr. Who material, I'd have thought.
>
> If people really wrote about what they knew, the world would be full
> of incredibly dull novels about people who work in a cubicle for 8
> hours a day, watch TV for 6 hours, then sleep for 8 hours, with a few
> hours spent in transit, eating, maybe having sex occasionally. On
> second thoughts, it'd be full of novels about people who work in a
> cubicle 8 hours a day, spend a couple of hours in transit, eating,
> occasionally having sex. And six hours trying to write novels.
>
That's the realism of a capitalist economy.
> I think Doctor Who writers could do worse than write about what
> they've read. Pastiche rules. My current proposal in progress is
> basically "What if Philip K Dick had written a Doctor Who novel". The
> best way to be original in Who fiction is to pastiche something that
> hasn't been pastiched before. IMHO.
>
Ah, a postmodernist!
> It's also useful to read good novels -- none of this 20th century
> stuff either, but great old novels, especially "character" oriented
> books (like Dickens') and adventure novels (like Dumas'). I guess it
> helps if you like that sort of thing...
>
Alright, not a postmodernist. Personally, i'd challenge you about reading
'old' literature. (which of course Philip K.Dick isn't). I have read various
pre-20th century texts over the course of my Education, including Shakespeare
and Dickens, and the only pre-20th century work that is any good IMHO are the
Sherlock Holmes stories and the work of Oscar Wilde. Everything else pre-20th
century i've read has been terrible. Especially Oliver bloody Twist whcih is
by far the most boring novel i have ever read, with terrible characterisation,
no plot and the most pathetic lead character ever.
If you want a change, look less far back. Take the early part of this century,
Camus, Calvino, Kerouac, Kasey (great use of alliteration BTW) and their ilk.
Or take a look at Millenium's (Orian) rangle of 'Sci-fi Masterpieces' or try
Arthur C.Clarke.
--
Philip Craggs
'What is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying.'
(Albert Camus).
Paradise Towers: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/3694/
'Kick over the wall/Cause Governments to fall/How can you refuse it?
Let fury have the hour/Anger can be power/You know that you can use it.' (The
Clash).
Daniel Frankham
donald...@diamond.co.uk wrote:
> Daniel Frankham wrote:
> > If people really wrote about what they knew, the world would be full
> > of incredibly dull novels about people who work in a cubicle for 8
> > hours a day, watch TV for 6 hours, then sleep for 8 hours, with a
few
> > hours spent in transit, eating, maybe having sex occasionally. On
> > second thoughts, it'd be full of novels about people who work in a
> > cubicle 8 hours a day, spend a couple of hours in transit, eating,
> > occasionally having sex. And six hours trying to write novels.
>
> That's the realism of a capitalist economy.
<sigh> Yes, it is indeed.
> > I think Doctor Who writers could do worse than write about what
> > they've read. Pastiche rules. My current proposal in progress is
> > basically "What if Philip K Dick had written a Doctor Who novel".
The
> > best way to be original in Who fiction is to pastiche something that
> > hasn't been pastiched before. IMHO.
>
> Ah, a postmodernist!
True. But then, so is practically everybody. But you wouldn't believe
how liberating it is to admit it :)
> > It's also useful to read good novels -- none of this 20th century
> > stuff either, but great old novels, especially "character" oriented
> > books (like Dickens') and adventure novels (like Dumas'). I guess it
> > helps if you like that sort of thing...
> >
>
> Alright, not a postmodernist. Personally, i'd challenge you about
reading
> 'old' literature. (which of course Philip K.Dick isn't). I have read
various
> pre-20th century texts over the course of my Education, including
Shakespeare
> and Dickens, and the only pre-20th century work that is any good IMHO
are the
> Sherlock Holmes stories and the work of Oscar Wilde. Everything else
pre-20th
> century i've read has been terrible. Especially Oliver bloody Twist
whcih is
> by far the most boring novel i have ever read, with terrible
characterisation,
> no plot and the most pathetic lead character ever.
I think a lot of "old literature" is best arrived at after leaving
education -- I didn't particularly get into it myself until after I
left Uni. And remember, old lit is mostly just old bestsellers which
have managed to survive the attrition that sends most books into
oblivion.
As for Oliver... it's admittedly not Dickens' finest hour. I liked the
evocation of London as this immense, diabolic city -- it was very
strange, soon after reading it, to discover that London at the time was
only about as big as the city I live in -- and there's a few well-drawn
characters (Fagin, Nancy, Bill, the Dodger), but it suffers from having
one of those too-good, utterly forgettable protagonists. And the plot
is rather coincidence-ridden (the David Lean film from the 1940s
actually has a much better plot than the novel).
(ObWho: The actor who played Oliver in the Lean film directed a Doctor
Who story when he grew up.)
(ObGoodies: He was also the producer on the first two seasons of The
Goodies.)
> If you want a change, look less far back. Take the early part of this
century,
> Camus, Calvino, Kerouac, Kasey (great use of alliteration BTW) and
their ilk.
> Or take a look at Millenium's (Orian) rangle of 'Sci-fi Masterpieces'
or try
> Arthur C.Clarke.
I'd probably buy a lot more of Millennium's sci-fi masterpieces if I
hadn't already read so many of them. (Picked up Cities in Flight a few
weeks ago, though -- there was one volume I'd never been able to get.)
I'd never discourage anyone from reading a wide range of things --
except in my previous post, which I regret :)
These are all good authors -- by Kasey I guess you mean Kesey? -- but
I'm not convinced (eg) Camus would provide more assistance in the
writing of Doctor Who novels than Dumas or Dickens... Most Who is, with
some exceptions, an old-fashioned adventure yarn... IMHO.
OJ THORNTON
: In article <7ilend$cfn$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,
: kor...@zipper.zip.com.au (Kate Orman) wrote:
: > In article <374E3313...@mindspring.com>,
: >
: > > Kate, while you are undoubtedly correct about how many of the
: > >submissions are bad, what if the newbies are actually right about
: > >the system being stacked against them? That would mean that all
: > >of their time, energy, effort, talent, and persistence would be
: > >wasted, wouldn't it?
: >
: > You seem to be suggesting that there are hurdles for newbies over and
: > above being obliged to submit only PDAs and short stories. Do others
: > concur? What's the evidence?
: Speaking as a recent BBC Book Rejectee, who made it to the honest-to-
: goodness real communique from Steve Cole category, the only real
: downside is the length of time it takes. The first hurdle, where most
: rejections happen (and you get a checklist) is about 3-4 months.
: However if you're lucky enough to get past that stage it's a lot longer.
: My PDA submission took nearly *14 months* before it was ultimately
: turned down. And that's not because people were earnestly poring over it
: for that amount of time either. There's a huge backlog of unsolicited
: work for more serious consideration.
So basically, if they keep not saying no, you're in?
I didn't take it seriously when the "Making of Red Dwarf" book said that
was how Rob Grant & Doug Naylor got commissioned. Maybe I was wrong...
(Hope rises: 4 months and counting since my latest proposal went in the
post...)
OJT
Dangermouse
Philip Craggs <donald...@diamond.co.uk> wrote
> Daniel Frankham wrote:
> > If people really wrote about what they knew, the world would be full
> > of incredibly dull novels about people who work in a cubicle for 8
> > hours a day, watch TV for 6 hours, then sleep for 8 hours, with a few
> > hours spent in transit, eating, maybe having sex occasionally. On
> > second thoughts, it'd be full of novels about people who work in a
> > cubicle 8 hours a day, spend a couple of hours in transit, eating,
> > occasionally having sex. And six hours trying to write novels.
Indeed, and there'd be (by definition) no such thing as historical fiction,
SF or fantasy.
> > I think Doctor Who writers could do worse than write about what
> > they've read. Pastiche rules. My current proposal in progress is
> > basically "What if Philip K Dick had written a Doctor Who novel". The
> > best way to be original in Who fiction is to pastiche something that
> > hasn't been pastiched before. IMHO.
> >
>
> Ah, a postmodernist!
And exactly correct too... Well, when we're in the mood....
--
"This path has been placed before you; the choice to take it is yours
alone"
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/4845/
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Bistro/7312/
-------
Graeme Burk
ojth...@bradford.ac.uk (OJ THORNTON) wrote:
> Graeme Burk (ggb...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Speaking as a recent BBC Book Rejectee, who made it to the
honest-to-
> : goodness real communique from Steve Cole category, the only real
> : downside is the length of time it takes. The first hurdle, where
most
> : rejections happen (and you get a checklist) is about 3-4 months.
> : However if you're lucky enough to get past that stage it's a lot
longer.
> : My PDA submission took nearly *14 months* before it was ultimately
> : turned down. And that's not because people were earnestly poring
over it
> : for that amount of time either. There's a huge backlog of
unsolicited
> : work for more serious consideration.
>
> So basically, if they keep not saying no, you're in?
>
> I didn't take it seriously when the "Making of Red Dwarf" book said
that
> was how Rob Grant & Doug Naylor got commissioned. Maybe I was
wrong...
>
> (Hope rises: 4 months and counting since my latest proposal went in
the
> post...)
No, if they keep not saying no, it means they keep not saying no.
As near as I can tell, they've got a hefty backlog of stuff, they have a
completely decentralised editorial system, and they're now going to try
and rejig the unsolicited manuscripts into a twice-a-year affair. Nada
means squat.
Sorry to be a wet blanket. I used to think, "oooo...it's been more than
11 months, Lance Parkin had Just War accepted after that amount of time"
The fact is, my manuscript was probably sitting in a pile for six months
waiting for poor Steve's attention.
There are no signs you can rely on. Even the 3-4 month figure I
mentioned for the checklist rejection letter.
Graeme Burk
Member of the "Close but no cigar" echelon of writers...
ma...@shoutmag.demon.co.uk
>
>: Speaking as a recent BBC Book Rejectee, who made it to the honest-to-
>: goodness real communique from Steve Cole category, the only real
>: downside is the length of time it takes. The first hurdle, where most
>: rejections happen (and you get a checklist) is about 3-4 months.
>: However if you're lucky enough to get past that stage it's a lot longer.
>: My PDA submission took nearly *14 months* before it was ultimately
>: turned down. And that's not because people were earnestly poring over it
>: for that amount of time either. There's a huge backlog of unsolicited
>: work for more serious consideration.
>
>So basically, if they keep not saying no, you're in?
>
>I didn't take it seriously when the "Making of Red Dwarf" book said that
>was how Rob Grant & Doug Naylor got commissioned. Maybe I was wrong...
>
>(Hope rises: 4 months and counting since my latest proposal went in the
>post...)
>
Whoopee!!
That means (10 months, 9 months and 7 months for my last three subs)
that the contracts should start arriving any day soon!!! Anyone want
to join me for champagne on my yacht!!???
:)