The Word Cloud

If you enter a comp more than once, do you hamper your chances?

Let's assume that you think you have three fabulous stories that all fit the criteria. You've asked your F&F who can't agree on which is best. Even you don't know. They're different stories.

Should you send all three to the comp? Or do eeny-meeny-miny-mo?

If you send then all, you're making one of your stories compete against another of your stories.
Does this help or hinder?

Will the judges get tired of hearing your voice and plump for something completely different?
What if they can't decide between your three fab stories - are they more likely to cast them all onto the reject pile and choose another one that isn't causing them grief?

Do multiple submissions to competitions increase your chances of winning? Or reduce them?

Intriguing arguments. I suppose one answer would be to submit all three under three different names. If necessary, borrow a couple of addresses from friends or family.

The judges are supposed to read the stories anonymously, I suppose it is to stop bias, so they wouldn't be aware you have sent in multiple entries. I'd go for it.

Thanks, Tony & Edwina, but my point (clearly unclear) was not whether they recognise your name (which as you say, should be anonymous), but your voice.
We all have our own styles; I've read enough on the WordCloud alone, to recognise stories written by a few of the authors; and one of my trusted readers says she can tell one of my stories with certainty - she knows they're written by the same person, even though the subjects are poles apart. I don't take this as a bad thing, and I do think it's good to try out different styles of writing. But if we're to write authentically, then our inner essence must come through on one level or another, surely? That's often why we buy the second book by an author if we've enjoyed the first - the writing "speaks" to us in the same way.

I suppose what I'm asking, is would the judges get bored with hearing the same voice? Or irritated that they can't pick between them (and therefore discard all)? Irked that neither stands head and shoulders above the others (because in your dreams, they're all peerless!)?
I realise this is totally arbitrary, btw - the chance of having one story short-listed is slim enough - but two? Three?
However, there would be no point in entering at all if you didn't think you had a chance of winning, so if all your dreams came true and all entries were short-listed - would it have been better to have submitted just one? And so avoided the judges' quandary?
As a reader, I find it easy enough to rank authors in my mind, but much more tricky to rank the books by the same author. Most are good/dire in different ways.
So would you be better off giving yourself just one shot at the prize?

Don't forget that in a competition of any size, there will be sifters before the pick of the stories goes to the named judge. So the chances of one sifter getting all of them are fairly slim.

Having said that, stories that get near to the longlist will be read - at least partly - by more than one person, so I suppose they might recognise the voice. But if it's a voice they like, they like it. I can't see that it does any harm. Indeed, I know I've seen the same name more than once on the longer long-lists, such as Fish, so you wouldn't be alone.

FWIW, the chief of the sifters at Bridport, the year I put two stories in, told me that they recognised them as being by the same writer, even though they were fairly different stories in form, content, style.... I guess you just can't stop your writerly DNA showing. That was in the days of print submissions, so there was also layout etc. (though I use a very standard layout and font, nothing fancy) to tell by. And he said they decided not to put the second one into the 50 going on to the named judge, to give as many writers a chance as possible. Still not sure if I mind about that or not, but I guess that if I hadn't put in the first story in at all, they probably would have put the second story forward. So mathematically speaking I did increase my chances by having more than one in the comp in the first place.

Emma

Well done you, for almost getting two into the short-list for Bridport! The fact that they discarded one - not on merit but because they recognised your voice - is the worrying thing. I suppose as you say, you got one rocketing up there, which is more than tens of thousands of other authors did - and had a spare as well for just in case.
I don't know why I'm worrying, really. Statistically, I'm more likely to die than to win a competition. Actually, I'm certain to die; but it's nice to dream before I do.
Reassuring about the Fish list - and the view that it can't do much harm beyond forking out the fee.
Thanks.

Interestingly, I put the same two stories in for a competition in one of the well-regarded little lit mags, now defunct, and they came in the other way round: the one Bridport discarded did well, and the one Bridport liked didn't. Which just goes to show that you shouldn't assume that one competition's verdict on a story is the only verdict...

Emma

I've judged some short story competitions and I can genuinely say I judged each submission on its own merits, to the extent I'm not 100% convinced I would have noticed at first if there was more than one by the same author.

Once I'd gone through the sifting phase and was making my own shortlist, I would probably have noticed at that point and may well have decided to only include one. But if I liked it/them, having a choice would be more likely to ensure that one got in. It certainly wouldn't make me feel I should reject both! So I don't think multiple submissions can do any harm and if they're good they will help the judge believe in you as a serious writer. All good stuff ...

And congrats on having a recognisable and distinct voice. You're right in thinking that it's one of the most crucial tools in an author's box!

I should add that it depends on the overall standard of submissions. If more than one of yours was outstanding and multiple submissions are allowed, in all integrity I would feel both should be shortlisted. If it came to more than one winning a prize though, it would probably be controversial.

But the point for your intial question is that making multiple submissions can only work in your favour IMO and help to establish you as a good writer in the judges' minds (as clearly happened with Emma at Bridport).

Thanks Debi and Emma for such informative replies. It's fascinating to hear of your experiences, really it is. Some comps do say in their T&Cs that an author can only win one prize - presumably they sort that out when they have the scoreboard and the names are revealed. Lets hope so.
There seems to be such a chinese wall between contestants and judges (for obvious reasons) that it's difficult to know how to play it. I never know whether I've just missed the short-list by a smidgeon or whether nobody read past the first paragraph and I should spend my money on something else - food, for instance.
Thanks again for your words - very interesting - and reassuring too.
Whisks

"I never know whether I've just missed the short-list by a smidgeon or whether nobody read past the first paragraph and I should spend my money on something else - food, for instance."

I know, it's very baffling, isn't it. I think that's one good reason for publishing longlists - Fish's can have 50 on them - because it tells the near-misses that they were just that. We all write so blind, don't we: no idea how our stuff strikes others.

For the comp in the mag I mentioned before (I think it was the late, lamented Cadenza) you could pay a bit extra to have a critique done, and as I was new to the short-story game, I did. It was a bit like a mini-WW report, and very useful, not so much in precise editorial advice for those stories, since they were kind of done-and-dusted for me by then, as for giving me a feel for how a judge would be looking at any story: what kind of thinking they'd be doing. And, indeed, why those judges had preferred Russian Tea to Maura's Arm, when Bridport had liked them the other way round.

The forthcoming Bridport judges do say a little about what they're looking for, but it's often not anything which you could very usefully work with.

Hmm, well I like to think I'm in position 51 in the also-rans, which is better than imagining the judges rolling around the floor at the idea that my story might be OK-ish - or worse still (is it worse?), using it to mop up the spilt coffee before they've even turned to the second page - and folding the dry bits into a paper aeroplane. The kind of report you mention Emma, sounds very helpful. When it gets to whittling down the final glorious few, it surely must be quite subjective - as you've shown with your interchangeable story wins; I have one story I've sent off several times (because I'm quietly pleased with it), but if it is never going to cut any judicial mustard, I'd like to know and cut my losses.
One thing that I don't understand though - Debi mentioned the value of impressing upon the judges that you are a worthy writer. How so? If they're judging the story rather than the author, why do the author's credentials matter? Am I being a 40 watt?

"When it gets to whittling down the final glorious few, it surely must be quite subjective"

In my one experience of judging a comp - but friends who do a lot bear it out - the judges pretty much agree on what the top ten or twenty stories are, but don't agree on which should be first, and so on. The basics of what makes a good story are relatively objective, at least within the confines of what kind of competition it is. The final call can't help but be partly based on a gut reaction about what speaks to you, as well as how you balance, say, technical skill with wild inspiration. Same as with agents and editors, of course. Nothing to be done about that, which is exactly why you shouldn't let take a single no-you-didn't-win as evidence that the piece is no good.

And no, they aren't rolling around on the floor...

"One thing that I don't understand though - Debi mentioned the value of impressing upon the judges that you are a worthy writer. How so? If they're judging the story rather than the author, why do the author's credentials matter? Am I being a 40 watt"

I think in the comp itself it wouldn't make much difference, though Debi may know otherwise, but the creative writing world is a small one. The same names do come up over several competitions, and people get to know each other. It's no bad thing for some good, established writers operating in that world to know your name. And you make friends. One of my fellow Bridport winners and I have just got to know each other, at an Open University training day...

Emma

Thanks, Emma; just for clarity, I did mean (but neglected to say) the final few three from the shortlist. Honestly I did! I can see how picking out the good stories for the shortlist itself, is likely to be consensual. The ultimate placings must be the tricky bit.
I've assumed - wrongly? - that in a comp of some size, the sifters just get rid of the really bad ones and the non-compliants, and that the judges read all the others and then prepare the longlist themselves. Is this the case? Or is it actually the sifters who present the longlist? Surely not the shortlist? Or do they?
I do realise that this would depend on the nature of the comp and the number of entries - but is there ever a case where the judges only get to read about 50-100 from tens of thousands of entries? Gulp. What a horrific thought!

And yes, the creative writing world does seem to be a small one!

Whisks
P.S. I appreciate your indulging me in all this - I find it an interesting topic.

"I do realise that this would depend on the nature of the comp and the number of entries - but is there ever a case where the judges only get to read about 50-100 from tens of thousands of entries? Gulp. What a horrific thought!"

Well, I can only speak accurately of the Bridport one I talked to the chief sifter about, and, yes, Jim Crace had said he could read 50, so that was what was sifted out for him, from the 4000 entries. (Bridport is about as big as it gets, so I don't suppose there are many others with more than a few thousands more). Everything that got into that 50 was read at least twice to earn its place. FWIW, the bloke said that though they do their best to be fair to every entry, but as they get 1500 entries in the last week, with each sifter reading perhaps 100, there's a lot to be said for not sending yours in at the last minute... That 2004 lot was the last year they didn't announce a longlist or anything, only the 1st, 2nd, 3rd prize winners and the 10 other prizes. The next year they did announce a longlist of 50, so I assume that was the list which was forwarded to the judge (who clearly wasn't as good at Jim C., as she didn't pick the one I had on that list...).

I know that U A Fanthorpe, judging the poetry one year, insisted on reading every poem, but poems are a lot shorter. But it still must have been in the thousands.

Some in the CW world think this issue of sifting should be more publicly talked about, but of course the judges are only human (and are usually not paid much, if at all), so what's a comp to do? Especially if they don't want to declare a stupid wordlimit like 1500 words... They need the big name for the publicity, and I guess they don't want to make much of the fact that unknowns will actually be the gatekeepers. The Fish Short Histories prize I was a judge on had three of us: as I remember we each read 20, picked our top ten, and then read each others' top ten to put them in order. But it was sifted before it got to us.

Emma

'Debi mentioned the value of impressing upon the judges that you are a worthy writer. How so? If they're judging the story rather than the author, why do the author's credentials matter? Am I being a 40 watt'n
Apologies for lack of clarity. I meant that if you submit more than one story of good enough quality to be at least shortlisted, that has to up your overall credibility in the judges' minds and create a favourable impression.

I've only ever judged smaller comps with no pre-sifting. A shorlist is usually relatively easy to arrive at by consensus. Narrowing down the winners is much harder and we have to do it by allocating scores, which means that ones that some of us adore and place first but others rate much lower might not get a look in as winners. Whereas one that we all rate high but none of us as the best, might turn out to be the overall winner.

It's a flawed process but it's hard to see one that would be perfect and of course (!) it's all subjective anyway.

Hope the insight helps - and I've forgotten to say .... GOOD LUCK!

Goodness gracious me. This is just insight after insight. Gripping stuff, thanks, both.
I had no idea how few might be read by the named judge(s) - I threw that comment out, expecting a "don't be so ridiculous" reply - but blimey o'reilly, it's true.
As an average whisk on the street (I don't mean that), I had imagined a sifting process that threw out entries where they were illegible; or havin' a larf with the wordcount; or included their name, pornographic photo and a £50 note; or so replete with rubbish spelling and grammar that nobody could countenance them winning.
Now you're saying, for the bigger competitions at least, that there are armies of evangelical people wearing branded tee-shirts and head-mikes, defending the judges from the scribbling grannies?
Goodness gracious me with knobs on.
The head judge on the Bridport only gets to read a few dozen? Phaw, that's all I can say (not true either).
So really, the main obstacle in such a comp, is getting past the sifters? If you're up before the beak, then the odds of survival improve dramatically. Well, that begs the question - what qualifies the sifters? I had imagined them as students doing a holiday job and while they may be literate and bright, they need not be demi-judges. Yet they are? Well, well, well.
That was an interesting point Emma, about the advantages of submitting early. Like the rest of the world, I look at the clock on the closing date and think "Two hours? Plenty of time." An hour later, I consider that I've got my entry in well before the deadline. But if the sifting starts months earlier, then most of us johnny-come-latelys are already scuppered.

Having said all this, it may sound as though I'm an inveterate competition enterer, which is not the case. In fact the amount of time I spend thinking and reading websites about them, belies my lily-liver; I've only probably entered about six. And one of those entries had my name on.

Debi, you're giving great encouragement to enter the smaller competitions and I do thank you. At least you're being judged by someone you rate, rather than a nameless band of trekkies.
Yes, it's flawed, but that's OK. We all know that it's easier to get 100% in a maths exam than in any of the arts, because of the human element; it's part of the deal. Similarly, it's easier to get 0% in a maths exam, so it's all still par for the course.
And yes, I can see that a favourite of a single judge may not win and one that is "pretty good" may come in tops because of the consensual nature of the beast. That's OK too - unless I'm a favourite of a single judge, then it's not OK in the slightest. But then I doubt I ever have been - I've always entered at the last minute and so the sifters would have most likely binned me, saving the judge the agony of indecision (couldn't they have just tippexed my name out?).

Yours, duly educated,
Whisks

Well, I think sifters are aspiring writers, friends of judges, friends of comp organisers: keen readers, certainly. I've been asked to do it more than once, but these days I have to cost my time. And I was actually impressed by how hard the Bridport system worked to be fair: each sifter has a big pile of 'no', and a tiny pile of 'yes' and a middle-sized pile of 'maybe', and all the yeses and the maybes are looked at by more than one.

It's a bit like slushpile readers: on one hand, what stands between you and the real agent is a tea-boy's say-so, on the other hand that tea-boy is an ambitious agent in training with a good degree and a serious reading habit.

Thanks for that. Wow. I'm speechless.

If it helps, Whisks, it's clear just from your posts here that you write with wit, intelligence and a distinctive voice. If your fiction is up to the same standard, I reckon you stand a good chance of eventual success.

But you have to be in it to win it, so send your work out far and wide!

I'm just chipping in here with my two pennyworth. Not on short story competitions but in agreeing with Debi and encouraging Whisks to cast her work upon the waters. Judging by the standard of your blogs, your writing is too good to keep to yourself, Whisks.

Whew! Thanks so much, Debi and Spangles! Yew dun garn make may blersh! Holy moly, I'm shure I don't know what to do with ma fayce, it's that pearnk.
That's very very kind of you both. I've taken most of my (better) blogs down already - does that mean I've got to smack 'em up again? No, it means write some more, doesn't it? Yup. Or even (golly!) enter a comp?
I'd add that I've learned loads from my float on the Cloud, which has a lot to do with the time and effort given freely by skilled writers such as yourselves. Thanks to all of you (published and will-be-published alike).
Whisks

Just chipping in to agree with Spangles: go for it!

Emma

Emma, your encouragement is very much appreciated. I was already grazing my ears when I walked through doorways. How am I going to get about now?

Wow! What excellent advice. I have just entered three different stories into the same competiton, and was very interested to read what might actually happen to them. Wish I'd been on here last month to get advice before I submitted them tho!