Tagline: When Jill found her heart's passion, love wasn't far behind!Observations: I really liked this story. I think there were a lot of small details in this story that Woman's World likes. I thought I'd list them. Small things add up.
1. A grandma is mentioned. Family is important.
2. Proving an old saying to be true, especially when a grandma is saying it, is a reliable trope for Woman's World.
3. Jill's sister is a stay-at-home mom. While Woman's World supports many modern beliefs, like women working, etc., they still do value old fashioned ones.
4. Brother is in the Navy, a noble career.
5. Jill's initiative is very important. She's such an upbeat character, you couldn't help but like her. If she's not happy, she doesn't mope around and complain or blame. She gets out there and does something about it. This is KEY.
6. Jill is full of gratitude and she's willing to demonstrate it.
7. Jill has a sense of humor and so does Jack.
8. Cooper adds so much romance by having Jack propose in the coffee shop where they had their first date. Not only that, but Jack thinks of getting her a heart-shaped diamond. Brilliant! (Pun intended.)
9. Cooper also brings the story full circle by quoting the saying again.
Photo credit: Marnee Pearce via the Flickr Creative Commons License
46 comments:
You are so right, Kate. Vintage Woman's World story. In all honesty, I am looking for something new. Maybe Patricia will be able to convince the higher echelon to move forward. As in, buy some of my stories. I don't mean New Age, just something for today's woman.
Amen, Mary Jo! :)
I liked this story. It certainly did have many of the traditional elements.
I agree with some of your points, Kate, but I'm going to buck the trend of "I liked this story." Frankly, I thought the premise of this story was as unlikely as some of the mysteries. I picture a man sitting on a bench. A woman walks up and hands him a book with the pages cut into the shape of a heart. The man thinks the woman has escaped from a mental hospital, and deposits the book in the nearest trash bin. And men don't sit around hoping for "signs," they laugh affectionately at women who do. I know WW likes beta heroes, but are we sure this one is even a man?
I didn't even think it was "vintage WW," as Mary Jo said. Generally there's some attraction, preferably sparks, at the first meeting. Nothing here. We're left to fill in everything between that meeting and the proposal ourselves. And then there's the proposal--I'm not a fan of this new trend of taking every couple to the altar (or wherever they go these days). It changes the proportion of scene to narrative in these SHORT stories, and not for the better.
Shelley has written other stories that I loved, this just isn't one of them. But as I always say, she pleased Patricia and the EIC, and that's all that really matters.
I must agree that this story was a bit far out. But, I've sent in a story that I think is pretty corny, even for WW, so now I have hope. Very funny little story, Betsi, about the mental institution escapee.
I have to comment also, and I usually like the stories Shelley gets in the magazine, but this one didn't do it for me. I liked the heroine, and her upbeat attitude. However, the hero didn't cut it for me either. I'm not saying the guy has to be swinging a chainsaw around, but I sort of pictured a bit of a wimpy guy when she handed him her heart book. And yes, she seemed a bit crazy at that point, too. Handing out heart books to strangers on benches is just a little weird. Not that there isn't corniness and sweetness in most of these stories, but we still want the guy to be a little virile, or something, don't we? Even when you watch the Hallmark holiday movies, the themes are all sweet and light--but the heroes aren't. Just my opinion.
I usually love, love, love Shelly's stories, but I wasn't sure about this one, unfortunately. But hey, Patricia and the WW EIC liked it, so that's what matters. I just hope they will like one of my stories someday!
Ha ha, I did submit a story once that had the hero with a chainsaw. I guess he was too much of a roughneck to make the cut at WW. I really liked him, though.
He didn't "make the CUT?" Mary Jo? Ha!
I also loved this story, Kate. Thanks for mentioning all those points. Your doing this really helps me work on the type of story and write for WW and the tone I need. I'll have to go back and reread the story now...and study more.
Thanks, Shelley. for another great story.
I usually enjoy Ms. Cooper's stories, but I have to agree with Mary Jo's comments. It would be nice to see something new. Something more relevant for today's woman.
Also, I must add, that although I enjoy a lot of the authors who have been previously published in WW, it would be nice to see new authors published as well. You know, just to hear new "voices" so to speak!
Just my two cents for what they're worth!
I have to agree with some of the others about this one—I like a little more of a 'man's man' in the romantic hero.
I sent in a story a little over a month ago and haven't heard anything—is it safe to assume I can move on with the story? This was my first e-submission. Not sure how it works now. :-) I liked hearing back that I'd been rejected!
On the revised submission notes, I believe it said to wait four months and then you can assume that your story is rejected. :(
And in theory, I am wondering when we non-published authors (slush pile dwellers) are being read. It seems like most of the stories that are getting printed now are by already-published writers. I can understand, absolutely, that it would speed things up to go with a known commodity. But I'm wondering myself whether to stop sending my stories here. :( Patricia Gaddis said something on the writer's page about people sending in stories with the same mistakes. I can only wonder if I'm one of them! (But I don't think so, I've won a fiction fellowship and several contests, and have been published elsewhere.) I just wish I knew.
Four months, hmmm…
I'd thought about taking all the stories I've sent WW ( about ten ) and doing a collection of shorts and publish it on Amazon. I have several short stories published now and they sell a few along—so I thought my WW stories might also—nothing to lose.:-)
Thanks, girls!
I don't understand why we who have been previously published at WW are instructed to use a different email address. It makes me wonder whether those who have not been successful there are treated differently. That contradicts the idea that they like a good story in spite of its origin.
I personally believe that PG will read submissions from both addresses and the separate email addresses are for 'paperwork' issues. Those who haven't been published before will need to be sent a tax form to fill out along with the contract and admin will know this straight away as they were in the 'non published' side.
CD
Tamara,
Thank you for pointing this out. I wholeheartedly agree with your comments.
There are many authors out there that are published, just not through WW yet. Besides, even if someone has never been published, it doesn't mean they don't have talent. All the stories should be sent to the same address for equal opportunity.
IMHO,
Larkin
Where is the writer's page where Patricia Gaddis talked about writers making the same mistakes?
@Mary Hicks,
When I had five rejected romances, I went over them, expanded some of them a little, and published them as a 99-cent eBook. I say go for it!
Here's the Amazon link to mine:
http://www.amazon.com/Meet-Cute-Romantic-Short-Stories-ebook/dp/B018Y0POA8?ie=UTF8&keywords=meet%20cute&qid=1460498881&ref_=sr_1_1&s=digital-text&sr=1-1
I don't have a Kindle, Bettye, but I see you got two nice reviews. I think this is a good alternative to getting stories published in WW. Also a good marketing strategy for your book. I hope it's a big seller.
Thanks Bettye! I couldn't click on the link you left here, but I will find you on Amazon and take a look.
My 2nd novel is currently in a campaign with Kindle Scout, but as soon as its free from that, I'll be publishing it on Amazon. I have five short stories on Amazon already.
Sandy Smith, there is a yahoo group for Woman's World writers, I rarely visit, but it seems like a wonderful group of women. You can access it from the right side of this blog. It's definitely worth joining.
On that page, someone recently asked Patricia Gaddis what she is looking for, etc. Patricia was good enough to write back. She said that she had seen many stories lately that featured a dog that got off its leash and ran away (which they would not run because it sounds like poor dog ownership.) She also said she was seeing many stories with "flat" or "dead" endings. Finally, she made a point of saying that she did not like seeing story after story (from the same author?) with the same mistakes. She suggested letting the stories "cook" for at least a week before mailing them. It was all wonderful advice and I really appreciate her taking the time to make the suggestions! :)
So much activity here on this story! People have different opinions. There have certainly been stories that didn't grab me, but that others here liked. :)
Regarding slush pile preferences, I have to put myself in Patricia's shoes. I have a job to do and I'm probably going to do it in the most efficient manner I can. If it saves me time and effort to look at stories by previously published authors, I will probably do that. However, the tried and true authors won't always have gems for me, so I will also spend time in the slush pile. However, I'M NOT PATRICIA so don't assume this is what is really happening. I'm just saying what I would do if I had her job. Honestly, slush piles have existed for a long time and while it doesn't seem fair, it's a part of the publishing business that isn't going to go away.
IMHO, it may feel unfair for the unpublished to have that "separate but equal" email address, but HOW GREAT IS IT that she is willing to converse with you on the loop? Focus on that and keep writing, ladies. Writing more stories is a much more productive use of time. :)
So there are two slush piles. Patricia has said in the past that she reads EVERYTHING that comes over her desk. That does not mean she reads the entire story, though. So be sure you start with a bang and not a whimper.
Kate/Kim, please do not ever again use the term "separate but equal." I am sure you did it thoughtlessly, out of momentary ignorance or carelessness, and did not mean it as a racial slur. Please understand that the term is extremely racist, coined during the shameful years of segregation in our country. "Separate but equal" referred to the horrific fact that every publicly-regulated institution -- from bathrooms and water fountains to neighborhoods and schools -- were shamefully segregated (and at the time, the government felt that it was OK!) Thankfully, times have changed! I am sure you have seen the shameful photographs and heard the demeaning tales of the prejudice of this time (if not, please read or watch "The Help"). Please realize that the term is incredibly offensive, not just to me, but to many. Obviously, it led to the civil rights era and new court decisions to try to bring forth some semblance of equality. Thank you.
Hey, Anony, it is about time someone said it. Not every American woman is Snow White. So today, you are my inspiration. I just finished the rough draft of a story called Tinker's Guy. If you ever see it published in WW you will see what I mean. I still have to cut 70 words out to make it come in at 800, and then let it cook a few days before submitting it. I think our wonderful Patricia will like it, but then it has to make the cut with the EIC. Wish me luck.
Oh come on... lighten up. I am sure there was no intent to offend anyone.
I am confused. Do we have two people on here who are Anonymous? It is hard for me to tell who is talking. Is there a reason you don't use a name or a nickname?
I was astounded to read that comment, and I'm sure Kate was (or will be) too. How can the words "separate but equal" be a racial slur when the context here has nothing to do with race? They're just words--I wouldn't have thought twice about saying the same thing.
Of course Kate had no racial content in her remarks, but what hurts someone depends on their own life experience. As the first Anonymous pointed out, in a very enlightening comment, even a phrase taken out of context can sting. So far as we are able, we should try to be sensitive to others' feelings even though they are not our own. We might also ask the offended to consider the intent.
On another note, as Sandy indicated, too many people who wish to leave anonymous comments can lead to confusion. No one said you have to use your real name...just be consistent.
It's true words can sting. But I can usually tell the difference when a persons intent is to offend and when they are simply conveying a thought.
Can you really believe Kate or any of the others would really want to offend anyone? Hmm… that thought could be offensive.
I guess I don't understand why anyone feels the need to be anonymous on this site. Why not use the name you write under, whether your own or a pen name? If you have a reason for preferring not to use your real name, make up a pen name. That way it is much easier to follow the conversations. I comment regularly on another blog in which some people don't use their name but have some kind of a nickname.
Maybe we could persuade Kate to eliminate the Anonymous category, if she is able to do that. Then if someone wanted to call herself Sweetpea or Ginger Beer or Whatever, we could at least keep track. I use my real name, so you will know me when you see me. Now, on to the next story.
To Anonymous. First of all, why post anonymously? If you want to make a point and call someone ignorant, then don't be a coward, post your name. Otherwise, your comment really is meaningless and accomplishes very little.
I'm sure Kate is well aware of the origins of that phrase, the history behind it, but did not think about using it because there hasn't been separate but equal anything since the 1963 school segregation incident in Alabama, after those laws were abolished by SCOTUS in 1954. It's a shame it took that long to get rid of the last stronghold for segregation, but all of that is irrelevant. As you can clearly see, this phrase was not used in any way, shape or form that could be remotely interpreted by anyone as racist. Well, anyone except you. And evidently Mary Jo. But at least she made a comment with a name, not hiding behind a curtain.
I don't think anyone needs to you school us on segregation. I think we're all well aware of its existence and the wrongfulness of it. We all took history class in school, and I'm sure some of us even lived through it. We all know it was a sad part of our country's history.
As for my 2 cents, I think Kate should remove the anonymous option from her blog comments section. If you don't have the nerve to say who you are when you are self-righteously dressing someone down, you don't need to be posting anything to anyone's blog. And you really do not have the right to tell someone what they can or cannot say. Period. That's called the First Amendment. You get to use it to call someone names on their own blog, too.
And you, Kasey D.(Mr. or Ms?) should learn to read plain English. What I wrote was, "Of course Kate had no racial content in her remarks..." I simply asked people to be sensitive to others' feelings. Try it sometime.
Well this is an interesting set of comments.
Of course I did not intend any harm when I used that phrase. I remember what happened during the height of the civil rights movement because they taught it to me in school. I also taught it myself when I was an elementary school teacher. I read The Help and saw the movie and loved both. I admire MLK Jr. and wish more people would really pay attention to what he really said in his famous speech and try to make that dream come true.
I'm sorry that Anonymous #1 was upset by the use of that phrase, however, I stand by my use of it. I think the comparison was a valid one. In fact, there is no way to understand my comparison unless you were aware of the historic significance. My only crime is using a phrase from that turbulent time in reference to our relatively innocent issue of separate email addresses.
Further, the Holocaust was even more of a horrific historical event, and yet people blithely go around using the term Nazi to describe anyone who's an intense fanatic about something. Seinfeld even had that famous episode about the Soup Nazi. I don't see anything wrong with that. The only situation in which I would hate to throw the term Nazi around would be in the presence of a Holocaust survivor. Similarly, If Anonymous #1 had to suffer through segregation herself, then I do apologize, but there are all kinds of people with different hot buttons and no way to know what all those buttons are.
So I guess, bottom line, I can assure you I will never intentionally promote racist thinking and I will endeavor to be polite, however, visit this blog at your own risk. Thank you.
Well said, Kate! :-)
Kate, one of the most remarkable women I ever met was one of our patients, a little lady with a prosthetic leg and a number tattooed on her wrist.
I am intensely curious as to what that deleted comment said.
I wonder too. Who would have guests this many comments would be generated?
How do you even remove a comment? Well, it's a Sunday afternoon and I have just been browsing at large.
Mary Jo, there's a little trash can beside comments after you make them and you click on that to delete. I have done it before when my post accidentally goes in twice.
I suspect Anonymous #1 replied and changed her mind. I'm pretty sure she didn't like my reply, but there's a limit to how politically correct I'm willing to be.
Post a Comment