Monthly Archives: November 2012

“Leftovers” Published in Humor Anthology

Carolyn Mulford Posted on by

I couldn’t resist the challenge: a call for humorous short stories featuring a resourceful woman dealing with a bad day.

For me, short stories pop into the brain almost whole. Nothing popped, but I’d toyed with a vague idea for a new mystery series. I decided to test it in a short story.

A lot of writers turn a chapter into a short story. I hadn’t written a chapter. Instead I developed a protagonist and a setting in backstory—what happens before the mystery begins. I submitted that short story, “Leftovers,” to Mozark Press for consideration for A Bad Hair Day, the third in the A Shaker of Margaritas series.  

Mozark accepted my story and 23 others from the Heartland and around the country. The paperback and e-book editions are now available.

With the cooperation of Mozark Press publisher Linda Fisher, I’ve arranged for the Columbia Branch of the American Association of University Women to sell the book as a fundraiser tied to the international Half the Sky Movement. Until the end of 2012, our Raising Our Half the Sky Committee and other members will sell the anthology. Our profits will go to Women for Women International.

I’ll be signing A Shaker of Margaritas: A Bad Hair Day and The Feedsack Dress from 1 to 5 p.m. November 23 and 24 in the historic Community Hall, Rocheport, Missouri.

The story convinced me that I would enjoy writing the series. In spare moments, I’ll come up with character bios, fiddle with plot ideas, and gather background information. Putting chapters on paper will have to wait until after I complete another book in my Show Me series.

Problems on That Crucial First Page

Carolyn Mulford Posted on by

Many agents and editors receive so many manuscripts that they reject most without reading all of the first page. We have to grab them fast.

Three small publishers—Linda Fisher of Mozark Press, Lou Turner of High Hill Press, and Yolanda Ciolli of AKA-Publishing—offered off-the-cuff evaluations of eleven anonymous first pages at the 2012 conference of the Columbia Chapter of the Missouri Writers’ Guild. Although they expressed personal preferences, they agreed on the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscripts.

Here’s how we conducted our one-hour First Page session. Interested conference participants emailed their submissions to me, each double-spaced page labeled fiction or nonfiction and adult or YA. I gave copies to the publishers shortly before the session. I read a first page aloud until all three indicated they would read no farther. (I seldom finished the page.) Then the publishers explained why they would stop reading. The writers could not ask questions or comment.

The publishers’ and my own observations indicated four common problems.

  1. A lack of context in the opening paragraphs. Writers failed to establish the time, place, setting, tone, or point of view. Readers didn’t know where the action was and where the story was going.
  2. A slow beginning. Writers lost the readers’ interest by giving too many details, too much description, too much backstory, or too many characters. The opening paragraphs lacked action or a hook.
  3. Unclear or mixed point of view. Writers headhopped or mixed omniscient and first or third person.
  4. Mechanical errors. The publishers quickly rejected manuscripts with typos, punctuation errors (most involving dialogue), and jarring or unclear syntax.

On the plus side, all of the first pages showed potential. The most pronounced strengths were distinct voices, vivid images, and arresting dialogue.

Milking When the Power Went Off

Carolyn Mulford Posted on by

Hurricane Sandy brought death and destruction to the East Coast last week. Millions who came through the storm unscathed still face an ongoing problem, the loss of electrical power. After a day or two, the lack of power went from an inconvenience to a hardship.

Thinking back to the loss of power on our farm, I remembered that we got along pretty well. We had fresh vegetables in the garden and canned ones in the storm cave, chickens to provide eggs and fresh meat, a kerosene stove for summer cooking, and a good supply of lanterns. After all, we didn’t even get electricity until the late 1940s.

When storms knocked out the power, our biggest problem was milking the cows by hand. Like the father in The Feedsack Dress, my father cared little that electricity enabled us to have bright electric lights rather than dim kerosene lamps, an electric radio rather than a battery-powered one, and an electric range rather than the hot wood-burning stove. To him, electricity meant the opportunity to milk with a machine and triple the size of our dairy herd, then about 10 cows.

He and my mother could milk those cows by hand in about an hour and a half, the same time it took to milk the expanded herd with the milking machine. And milking with the machine took far less energy and produced much less stress on the hands and wrists. Replacing the lanterns with electric lights also raised human (not bovine) productivity, especially on dark winter mornings and evenings.

I’m not sure what the cows felt about the changes, but they adjusted.

Less work and more money. It was great—until the power went off. Milking all those extra cows by hand took hours and cramped the muscles.

Nothing like losing your electricity to make you value it.

Starting and Maintaining a Critique Group

Carolyn Mulford Posted on by

Loved ones usually can’t give us objective feedback. For that we need a good critique group, one made up of four to six writers who share our interests and goals. How do you find them? The best bet is to recruit them from a writers’ organization or a writing class. If neither is available, post a notice at the library or bookstore. If that fails, look for an online group.

Turning several writers into a useful (possibly inspiring) critique group takes time and patience. Once established, many groups continue for years. In my experience, you improve your chances of having a great group if you remain flexible but follow these basic steps.

 

1. Before committing to a group, discuss:

*** the compatibility of writers’ current and anticipated projects:

*** the time each writer can devote to writing and critiquing:

*** the preferred frequency and location of meetings.

2. Writers should agree on the following:

*** the amount of material a writer can submit to the group at one time;

*** the deadline for submitting material before each meeting (critique before, not during, the meeting);

*** members’ responsibilities (e.g., critiquing—not just marking typos—of all work submitted and submitting occasionally);

*** a coordinator who will deal with scheduling, etc.

3. During each meeting, follow an established procedure, preferably silent author-single speaker. Under this plan, no one interrupts as each critiquer takes a turn at commenting on a manuscript. Often a group modifies this to allow the author to ask for a clarification and other critiquers’ opinion of a specific point. A group may suspend the rule to discuss an issue, but it’s critical that the author listen rather than “explain” at length.

4. Be honest but constructive. Be professional, not personal.

*** Start by summarizing the piece’s strengths but noting any major weaknesses.

*** If you are the first critiquer, be thorough; cover minor and major points.

*** If you’re not first, focus on points no one else has mentioned and on major points where the writer needs to hear different opinions.

*** When everyone has finished, the author may ask for suggestions.

*** Suggest—not dictate—changes, always remembering this is another writer’s work, not your own.

*** Give the writer the manuscript with your comments written by hand or on the computer.

If you get into a critique group where writers offer destructive rather than constructive criticism or seek nothing but praise of their own work, leave the group and find another.