Short Story Collection Contests, Part I: The Reading and Judging Process

Posted on 12 May 2014

I recently served as a reader for a short story collection contest. That means I was responsible for evaluating between three and four dozen book-length manuscripts – only a small portion of the contest’s entire entry pool – and sending my top picks on to the final judge, who would choose a winner to receive publication and  prize money.

While Living Arrangements won a collection contest back in 2010, this was my first time on the other side of the fence. I thought I’d share my process for reading/judging these manuscripts as well as some tips for anyone planning to enter a collection contest in the future.

My Process

First, I’d like to stress that there’s no universal process for judging writing contests. I wasn’t given any strict guidelines for how to proceed, and every contest reader probably has her own method for sorting through the vast number of entries these contests attract. Based on a very rough estimate, I was responsible for upwards of 8,000 pages of fiction, which again represents only a fraction of the contest’s overall entries. (The photo I’ve included here shows many, but not all, of the collections I read.) That’s a lot of pages. So how did I do it?

I started by logging each submission into my own spreadsheet. For the record, this contest used anonymous submissions, which meant I did not know the writers’ identities. Next, I quickly read the first and final stories in each collection. That’s right – only the first and last story, nothing in the middle (except for a few special cases that made for trickier decisions). Then I separated the collections into three piles: yes, no, and maybe. I was fairly conservative in my decision-making process. If I truly couldn’t decide between a “yes” and a “maybe,” I moved that collection into the yes pile. If I couldn’t decide between “no” and “maybe,” it went into the maybe pile.  Here’s a breakdown of how I made decisions for each category:

Yes: I moved a collection into the “yes” pile when it contained strong writing, imagination, storytelling, technique, etc., so I could later give it a full, careful reading. Putting collections in this pile didn’t necessarily mean they would end up among my final picks, of course; it only meant that they needed a more complete reading so I could make the best decision possible. Usually, designating a manuscript as a “yes” was a fast and easy decision – a strong submission came across that way from the start. Roughly 22% of all entries ended up in my “yes” pile.

No: Making a decision to move something to the “no” pile was also usually a quick and dirty decision. Maybe the writing wasn’t strong, maybe the stories were cliché or contained glaring flaws, maybe the submission wasn’t appropriate for the contest, or maybe I simply knew there was no chance I’d rank that submission among my top choices. I placed 58% of submissions in this category.

Maybe: I moved a story in the “maybe” pile when I didn’t see enough that warranted either a “yes” or a flat-out “no.” By far, making the call to put a collection in this pile took the most time and created some of my most difficult decisions. This was the only category in which I might dip into other stories besides the first and the last to get a more comprehensive view. Unfortunately, in reality, the “maybe” pile was really more of an extension of the “no” category. I considered the maybes something of a backup in case my “yes” pile wasn’t as strong as I’d expected once I completed full readings. Roughly 20% ended up in this pile.

On Time, Instinct, and Fairness

That was the first round. From there, I spent more than a month reading the “yes” pile. In most cases, I read each manuscript in its entirety, from the first page to the last. (A few times, however, I stopped reading early when it became clear the collection wasn’t strong enough to make it as one of my top picks.) Sometimes I grew frustrated with a collection that started out strong but started to waver later on, but at other times, I was so engrossed in the manuscript that I didn’t want it to end.

At every step of the way, I was aware of my own biases, preferences, and the very subjective nature of this entire process. Above all, I wanted to be fair. I didn’t want to discount a collection just because it wasn’t the type of book I’d usually pick up. I remained open to different voices and styles and subject matters. Mostly, though, I simply wanted to find really good submissions that deserved to win the prize.

This process also took a lot of time. I couldn’t exactly blaze through an entire stack of book-length story collections in one weekend, after all. And while I worried over the rankings at first (“Does this collection really deserve to be in my #3 spot? What makes it better than the manuscript in the #4 slot?”), my decisions became easier with time. I took notes on each submission, and soon a natural ranking emerged. The standout manuscripts made themselves known and quickly rose to the top. Of my group, I had two manuscripts that were very, very strong – collections I hope to see published sometime in the near future, even if they don’t end up winning this contest – and several others that were so good I wouldn’t be surprised if they ended up winning.

But remember, I wasn’t the final judge, and I also didn’t have the benefit of seeing all the contest entries. If my portion contained that many potential winners, then there were probably a lot more strong submissions out there in other readers’ hands.

Tomorrow, I’ll post some of the common pitfalls I observed among submissions as well as tips for entering collection contests. Stayed tuned!

3 responses to Short Story Collection Contests, Part I: The Reading and Judging Process

  • Hey Chandra sibling! Great description of your process. Thank you. I may have to link to this. Evan

  • Recent Posts

    Tag Cloud

    5 random things acceptance American Literary Review AWP AWP 2012 book reviews books Bread Loaf 2012 cat lady cats Cirrus Cleveland Cleveland writers contests failure Fiction Writers Review first drafts Huda Al-Marashi literary magazines living arrangements Mac's Backs Mid-American Review NaNoWriMo novel revisions Opal Poets & Writers publishing reading rejection revision rust belt chic Saucy Sophie Kerr Prize Stories on Stage The Writing Life this is what the publishing process looks like tricia springstubb Washington College writing advice writing buddies writing frustrations writing goals writing groups writing retreat writing workshops


    Laura Maylene Walter is proudly powered by WordPress and the SubtleFlux theme.

    Copyright © Laura Maylene Walter