How to use this Page

When I checked the post on Saturday I saw a familiar A4 white envelope with the address written in my own handwriting. Now usually this means one thing another rejection. Well it was in a way – it was the short story assessment from Writer’s Forum magazine. The form is broken down into different sections including opening, title, characters, language and ending. Then there is a choice of description that the reader can pick with a score next to it. For example title: Suited the story – 10, room for improvement 5, and try again 0. There are also four sections for the reader to add more detailed comments. Finally there is a page of typed general hints that are not specific to your entry and then a total and explanation as to what the overall scores mean. My story ‘Ninety nine per cent’ about the space chimp programme scored 150 (out of a maximum out of 230.) Ham the space chimp This meant it qualified for second read and there was also a tick next to highly commended (130+) . The form explains: “After an initial assessment the manuscript is either rejected or passed to another reader for a second opinion. At that stage it is either rejected or short listed for the attention of the editor and publisher. My story scored better for the early parts but the reader felt it needed a more exciting finish. This seemed a very fair comment to me as I can struggle with the endings of some short stories and I may well take another look at my story. They also said: “Confident writing, great premise for story, good characters in the chimps, lots of research and accurate detail.” But they went on to say: “But what is the theme? Too ambiguous for short story,” with some suggestions as to what needed fixing. Overall I was pleased with the comments and thought they were excellent at showing where improvements could be made. Writers’ Forum run a writing competition every month in their magazine including the application form – which can also be downloaded from their website at www.writers-forum.com Entry is £10 (£7 for subscribers) including a critique like mine. It did take a little while for them to reply. You also need to include biographical details (50 words maximum) and if chosen they will need a photograph of you. Stories should be between 800 and 3000 words. The Prizes are: £300 1st prize, £150 2nd prize and £100 3rd prize.

The other day, I was telling my journalism class about the old radio show, I Was a Communist for the FBI. This program juiced up the adventures of Matthew Cvetic, an undercover agent who infiltrated the Communist Party headquarters in western Pennsylvania sixty years ago.

Cvetic surfaced in the early 1950's, right as the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings axed hundreds of writers and journalists for lefty sympathies. In the fallout, this bizarre FBI agent landed a book, radio, and movie deal about his exaggerated adventures.

His life story produced over 70 radio episodes, reminding us of a time when popular culture swallowed a laughable amount of dangerous stereotypes. The Internet Archive has collected the series, including my favorite: "I Can't Sleep."

In this episode, both the Russian and FBI agents bug our spy's room--everybody struggling to eavesdrop on Cvetic's sleeptalking jags. The scene where Cvetic crawls around in his communist bunk-mate's bed groping for a "toggle switch" on a bulky tape recorder is a classic moment in American paranoia.

Why do I bring this up now? History has turned Hoover and McCarthy into punchlines for their overzealous work. But at the time, they controlled the livelihoods of countless journalists and writers.  How will history treat the current administration?

Last week New York Times reporter James Risen was subpoenaed to reveal his national security sources and possibly breach the confidential bond between reporter and source. It will affect how writers and journalists work for the next century.

Check it out:

"Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the paper 'strongly supports Mr. Risen and deplores what seems to be a growing trend of government leak investigations focusing on journalists, particularly in the national security area.'"