Monday, April 22, 2013


I don’t understand why most writers don’t get it.

I’m not talking about the trolls who take offense to any words of critique…I’m talking about the writers who want to learn, want to improve, and work at their craft daily. To be honest, getting accepted in a themed anthology is fairly easy.

First of all, you have to be able to write. You have to have a good understanding of grammar, sentence structure, story structure, and the craft in general.

But all of that aside, you should be smarter than the other submitters. Let’s say the anthology’s theme is classic horror tropes…and the editor defines (for the anthology’s sake) classic horror tropes as stories involving vampires, werewolves, ghosts, mummies, etc. Then the writer needs to submit a story like no one else’s.

More than likely, the majority of submitters will write a vampire story. It’s the first thing that pops into their heads. Let’s say I get 500 submissions for the anthology. Let’s say 300 of them are vampire stories, 50 are werewolf stories, 50 are zombie stories, 25 are ghost stories, 25 are mummy stories, 25 are water type creatures, 20 are demon creatures, and 5 are OTHER type of creature stories.

First of all, your story is competing with 499 stories to make it in the anthology. Next if you write a vampire story…yours must be better than 299 others because the editor will choose only one blood sucker out of the bunch. That’s heavy competition! But if you choose to write a story involving a classic monster that no one else writes about, your chances of getting in the anthology is very good…maybe even a 95% better chance of making the cut! Again, that’s if your story is good, mind you.

Think about it, you could have a vampire story rejected that is actually better than an accepted story of a creature very few submitted about…because your competition was so much stiffer in the vampire category. So think about the anthology theme and find a story or an angle that no one else will mine and your chances of acceptance will be great.

Go Back To

1 comment: