Story 2.0

[Robert_Moriyama]

I can see two problems with this.<br><br>First, those of us who are actively writing probably have enough trouble finding time, energy, and inspiration to write NEW stuff, let alone fixing or completely rewriting those of our 'children' whom we've already evicted from the nest between our ears.<br><br>Second, and more importantly -- how many of us have enough nerve to try to improve past work -- and risk having someone read both versions and LIKE THE OLD ONE BETTER?? :P<br><br>On the other hand, those who have archived stories written long, long ago who are SURE that their skills have improved may welcome the opportunity. There must be one ... or two ... or more? out there ...<br><br>Robert M.

[kailhofer]

I disagree with the principle of this. That is, I don't think that one should be able to change their story after the fact.<br><br>First, I think it erodes an important sense of accomplishment writers get when they finally package off a story and drop it in the mail (electronic or snail). I know I have a feeling of relief, joy, and anticipation. The "Whew! It's done!" sensation. If I can just go back and change the story around later, how was it done the first time? Where's the sense of joy in that?<br><br>Second, as Robert M. said, what if you mess it up? If the story was bad, it wouldn't have passed muster in the first place and have been sent back for revisions. So now that you go and tweak a perfectly good story for re-publication, what kind of guarantee do you have that it will be better? Are we so sure of our talent that we know for certain that we won't dissolve the tale's verbal glue? I know I'm not.<br><br>Third, stories came from within us, and are therefore (to a certain extent) a represenation of who we were at the time it was written. Stories are rare and wonderful time capsules to our abilities as writers at the moment we sent it off. These yarns serve as examples not just to others, but also to ourselves. Their texts help show us what we did right or wrong as storytellers so that we can change them --in the future. In a sense, to just change the old story is to not learn its lessons.<br><br>There were things that I didn't like in my published efforts, sure, but I would never change them. They are a part of who I am.<br><br>Moreover, this 'time capsule effect' is good positive reinforcement. A writer can go back to any story and re-read it at any point in the future, and perhaps be entertained all over again by something he or she had forgotten. One can be reassured that it was indeed good, and stroke the fragile ego that lurks in the heart of every writer.<br><br>I can't fathom wanting to change something that was published. They weren't rough drafts, or experimentations--they were published tales. These efforts were already judged by other persons as good. Are we trying to say that their assesment was wrong? Do we feel that disappointed in the quality of our own work?<br><br>Finally, I remember reading that Aphelion was meant to be a forum for writers to hone their skills. By my definition, writers write new stories. Editors are people who change the stories or order revisions. I want to hone my writing skills, not my editing skills.<br><br><br>I have trouble getting off the stump. Others may think differently and want to be in said re-issue for their own reasons. I, however, shan't be one of them.<br><br>Nate

[doc]

I know Aphelion is a semi-professional market, so it's a GREAT place to learn the ropes and get a little acknowledgement for your efforts, but aren't you saying (with this idea) that you have accepted some lackluster stories in the past?

<br><br>For the record, Aphelion has published some absolute stinkers in the past. There were stories that strove for the rarified hights of lackluster but couldn't quite manage it. There's been one or two stories made me want to personally visit the author with a hardcopy printout of the text just so I could whap him or her with the rolled up copy.<br><br>OK, so most of it ain't that bad. But Sturgeon's Law is pretty much universal, so don't think we're slipping out under the radar.<br><br>Also, we try not to lose sight of the fact that Aphelion is designed to be a magazine second and a writers workshop first. The whole point of putting the fiction and poetry up is so that you guys will read it, and comment on it, and the author can get direct, constructive feedback. We're not a semi-professional market, whatever that means. We're a feedback machine for developing authors. That's our mission. While there's a certain standard that the editors maintain, none of the stories we publish is remotely perfect. Well, maybe one or two, but mostly, they're all flawed gems.<br><br>Having said that, I can certainly understand why most folks would rather expend their skull sweat by taking what they learned from the last story and putting it towards a new one.

[Robert_Moriyama]

There is nothing, to me, inherently offensive about revisiting something you've published earlier with an eye towards improving it. To me, the act of revision is the most natural thing in the world.

Jeff Williams

<br>The soon-to-retire-from-publication (but not from writing) Stephen King has issued significantly revised versions of more than one of his novels (I think -- The Stand is the only one I'm sure about). Gerrold's Harlie novel rewrite is another example of pros revisiting their past work.<br><br>On the one hand, for these well-established writers, it's a matter of pride (only 'divas' (what the hell is the male equivalent?) who think they can do no wrong ever feel that any 'finished' work is perfect!); on the other, it's a way of making a whack of money without doing quite as much work as turning out a whole new book.<br><br>For us Aphelionites, it would be a matter of pride only. It WOULD be good to prove to oneself that one's skills as a writer were improving with time; but how painful it might be to learn that one is becoming pretentious (using 'one' instead of 'you', for example) ... I made a total of $250 (Canadian) from writing back in 1982 or thereabouts. I've made about $50 or $60 TOTAL over the years since then. THIS IS NOT REASSURING. I THINK my 'ear' for dialogue and description has become better over the years, but maybe my imagination ain't what it used to be? I can only hope that the word-processor revolution has made it easier for a lot of would-be-writers to actually produce submittable material (god knows typewriters slowed ME down in terms of producing 'finished' mostly-clean copy), so there's more and better competition than way back then ...<br><br>Robert M.

[Robert_Moriyama]

Many writers might prefer to work on something new, on the other hand, writers with little time to write new stuff might like the chance to knock up a revision and get their stuff read again!

GG

<br>For that matter, given the amount of feedback (or lack thereof) most stories receive, writers might like to know that their stuff had been read ONCE (by more than the relevant Editor, Dan, and (most months) me ...) ;)<br><br>Robert M.

[crb2099]

I'm shocked at how much opposition there is to this idea. Perhaps I'm not as traditional as I sometimes like to think. <br><br>I say let's embrace the glory that comes with todays modern age and go with Story 2.0. The great thing about the Internet is that you can go into the past (read, back issues of Aphelion) and change it. This concept capitalizes on many of the advantages of Internet publishing. One of which is the fact that you can significantly increase the amount of content/pages in your publication without significantly increasing the cost of the issue (except maybe in manual labor). <br><br>Yes, it is a wonderful thing to able to go back to your older work and compare how the style, tone, themes (gramatical cleanliness) has changed over time. I do it all the time. Story 2.0 would provide a great opportunity to show just that by "updating" a past story.<br><br>Many writers, I'm sure, have looked at past works and thought "if I had written this one now, I would have done X, Y and/or Z differently." Why not take the opportunity to see which version readers perfer? Was the original concept the more pure and true, or did you add a dimension to it that you never even realized was possible at the time?<br><br>That's my two cents.<br><br>-Christian

[Robert_Moriyama]

Two points to consider:<br><br>Gareth (D Jones, I think -- I keep getting the Gareths mixed up) tentatively submitted a rewrite of 'Six Lights Off Green Scar' -- tentatively because he wasn't sure how Aphelion might handle such a thing.  I referred him to this discussion topic and replied that I wasn't sure either!  He subsequently withdrew the submission ...<br><br>I think if we DID start running Story 2.0 pieces, they would have to be in a separate section (which, sadly, would probably mean even fewer readers and responses) clearly labeled as such.  To make things more interesting, they COULD be annotated (with embedded links to author's comments on particular passages, or (assuming some HTML/XML whiz knows how to do it) as pop-ups that would appear superimposed on the page (but above the section in question) ...<br><br>OR we could have a Topic under Administrivia where authors could provide links to revised stories (assuming they have web space somewhere ... Aphelion could probably host them somewhere if not) ...<br><br>Either way, the Editorial Mafia and/or Webmaven (assuming that lofty and godlike post is not 'Editorial')would have more work in addition to the tasks we seem to be having trouble completing on a timely basis as it is.  Unless we have some volunteers to help out??<br><br>Robert "Can someone parse that last paragraph?  Bueller?  Bueller" M.<br><br>Robert M.

[Robert_Moriyama]

The thing is... in the old days, if you got a story printed in a paper and ink fanzine, it had a limited shelf life. With the internet, all your old stuff hangs around way past its sell by date.

With 'Six Lights', I undertook a massive re-write after reading the comments offered by Aphelion readers... and I think the new version - simply titled "Roulette" - is a hundred times better than the version that was published. Unfortunately, that early version is the one that's online, the one people will continue to see.

The new version will appear in my first short story collection, due early next year. But in the meantime, I'd be happy for it to appear here under a "Story 2.0" banner, if such a category was created.

Gareth Lyn "not D Jones" Powell

<br><br>... Best check with your publisher. Stonegarden gave Rob Starr the okay for his stories to stay online here after they were due to be published (in e-book and print form), but your publisher might not be as charitable.<br><br>Robert "At Least I Admitted That All Gareths Look Alike To Me" M.

[kailhofer]

Man... Tao crawled out of his crypt again. It's gonna take me 2 hours just to read all of these messages, let alone try to comment on a few. :)<br><br>

Nate - Kailhofer has lots of stuff to respond to.

That sense of accomplishment comes from you "getting it out the door in whatever shape it's in so it's not you that's holding up the issue". Put another way, sometimes a writer can know that he has only submitted an 85% effort, *which may still be good enough* to see the light of day.

<br>Unless you're an editor, or under deadline to write the next Nightwatch, the issue would roll out without you. *After* it's ready is when an editor will try to schedule it, at any magazine/webzine. My own sense of satisfaction comes from a sense of completion or satisfaction knowing that it was now published.<br><br>I would never send out an 85% effort. I'd be ashamed. Furthermore, after spending a lot of time rewriting for pro slush editors lately, I'd like to meet the person who can sell at only 85% effort. Maybe at a freebie webzine, but the bigs won't take that. It's hard work if you ever want $$.<br><br>

Also, what if there were initial restrictions to be met originating from the initial outlet? Not counting all the famous tales of the Pulp area, on my shelf is an entire collection of essays from the editor of a medical magazine, which were truncated at the time for the space requirements, "now restored to the full original version".

<br>Hell, I'd be surprised if anything ever went the way an author wanted unless they were famous and carried tremendous name recognition. Writing is one thing. Publishing is very much another, one with give and take. You give. They take. Then you get lucky. Maybe. But rest assured, what comes out in the end will not be what you started with.<br><br>(And if someone does magically get it all to work the way they wanted--I don't want to hear about it.:P) <br><br>Look, if someone wants to write a story over, go ahead. They don't need my permission. I just won't be doing it, myself.<br><br>Unless... The story can be translated into a new form of media. I've been puttering with rendering software (because I can't draw) & if I can ever figure the damn thing out, I want to take a previously published story and present it in a new way. The story is good, was published for money, and is short--that way I don't have to come up with a long piece. It's an experiment in how to present a story, and I don't want the story to be an unknown variable. Oh, after I re-learn how to make fancy web pages again, too.<br><br>So, if you can convert a former story into some new multi-media effort, I guess I'm for it. Otherwise, seems like a bad idea to me.<br><br>Nate

[kailhofer]

Just finished reading the 2.0. I'm embarrassed to admit I can't remember the old ending. How did it finish before?

Nate