In 2024 SmokeLong hosted our second SmokeLong Workshop Prize competition. Our workshop participants reported almost 300 publications to us before November 1, 2024. In 2025, we’ll be featuring one writer each week from The SmokeLong Workshop Prize long list. It’s an excellent series of interviews, each grappling with questions about workshopping, giving and receiving feedback, and the publication process. If you are a previous or current SmokeLong workshop participant and you have ultimately published something you began in a SmokeLong workshop, remember to enter The SmokeLong Workshop Prize competition. This free-to-enter competition is on our Submittable page.
__________________________
An Interview with Travis Flatt — “Gladiator” published in MacQueen’s Quinterly and “Almanac” published in Does It Have Pockets?
What do you remember about the workshop where you wrote these stories? What was the prompt or writing task that led to each?
For my story “Gladiator” our workshop focused on editing a WIP (work in progress). I saw my two options (and I’m sure many writers might approach this differently) as either dusting off a draft I’d previously progressed to an almost-submittable state and then pushing it that extra bit or working on something that existed as notes and free writes. I chose the latter option, as “Gladiator” is almost CNF, and I’d been fumbling about how to turn these painful experiences into a story. To submit to the workshop, I wrote a longer version of the published piece, something close to 1,000 words. The insight of the other SmokeLong Fitness writers helped me trim the story down.
I developed the story “Almanac” through a few workshops, which can be a great strength of the SmokeLong Fitness process. This story began as a micro, around 300 words, in which a child pesters his father about a wasp nest in their basement. I didn’t believe the story was strong enough for publication, but a month or so later Fitness did a week on elements. I wrote a much longer version of the story and added a storm to raise the stakes, the idea being that the kid had to choose between two phobias, both childhood fears of mine. I submitted this piece to a few places but saw it wasn’t ready. And then Fitness did a week on voice, so I zoned in on who this kid is. So, this piece went through a few workshops, which has happened with a few of my published stories.
Peer-review feedback is always full of surprises. In general, what kind of feedback do you find helpful? What kind of feedback do you find less helpful?
I want to know what exists in my head and what’s on the page. Where am I being opaque or withholding? In other words, what parts are confusing? Alongside that, sometimes others will throw out suggestions, generally prefaced with “I’d like to see…,” that genuinely surprise me. That helps me see the story through a different lens. Comments about mood and atmosphere, less tangible things, are less helpful.
For me, the peer-review process allows you to read the story like someone else would. That’s vital. Sometimes, when drafting a story, I’ll withhold important information because I’m trying to avoid exposition. I think this is a balance I’m still working on in my creative journey. My feedback group can tell me when something doesn’t quite make sense, is unintentionally mysterious. That’s an important critique that I get fairly often, I’ll freely admit, but the feedback helps me shine enough light. And, to be honest, I’m greedy for feedback, so I don’t know if there’s any feedback I find “less helpful.” I think it’s all useful; I’m trying, and I genuinely can’t think of feedback that’s not useful.
To how many places did you send the stories? Can you tell us a little about their journey to publication?
“Gladiator”: Honestly, there’s not much to say in this case. I sent it to two places, and one accepted it quickly. I believe I already had several other stories sent out when I finished “Gladiator”. MacQueen’s Quinterly was among the following few journals I had my eye on.
“Almanac”: I sent this story out twice with two different titles, the second time as this published version, “Almanac.” Between the two versions, I sent it to almost twenty journals. Half of those places rejected it, and I withdrew from the others. My typical journey is to send a story out to two or three places I consider a perfect fit, and if that doesn’t land, I’ll send it out to a few more places. I always go to places I admire; I keep an extensive list of journals that interest me, like most authors do, I assume.
What is your advice to someone considering taking part in a peer-review workshop?
Participate. You get out what you put in. A well-run workshop has moderators and rules about etiquette, so one shouldn’t be worried about rude criticism or egos. But my advice is to respect it and participate. A peer-review workshop is a great way to work with people who write outside your comfort zone. I don’t write poetry or CNF, but I work with people with major publications in both forms. That’s one of many reasons to do it. You’re learning from people with different backgrounds and, quite likely, more experience than yourself. That’s certainly been the case for me. Take the workshops, give lots of feedback, and listen to the feedback you receive (and take it gracefully). Also, don’t be shy. I’ve made friends in SmokeLong Fitness by using the message/chat feature. Even if you’re hesitant to go that far, you’ll probably make some friends or acquaintances if you’re active in the workshop.
Read “Gladiator” by Travis Flatt published in MacQueen’s Quinterly.
Read “Almanac” by Travis Flatt published in Does It Have Pockets?
______________________________
Travis Flatt (he/him) is a teacher and actor living in Cookeville, Tennessee. His stories appear in Fractured Lit, Flash Frog, Gone Lawn, JMWW, Does It Have Pockets, Had, New Flash Fiction Review, The Disappointed Housewife, MacQueen’s Quinterly, and elsewhere. He enjoys theater, dogs, and theatrical dogs, often with his wife and son.
