mammamaia wrote:it won't count with agents or publishers... they're only interested in whether what you have to offer them is marketable, or not... and winning or getting an honorable mention in some dinky, obscure contest isn't going to make them think you're a good writer... the only proof is in the pudding they can see--your query letter and submitted chapters...
of course, if some previous published book of yours has won a pulitzer, pen, or edgar, that would indeed be impressive... but in that case, you'd already have an agent and publisher, right?... contests you enter with unpublished works aren't usually worth the fees they charge...
Maia, I usually love your no-nonsense attitude on here, but I have to disagree with you on this. My opinion comes from my observation with interviews. When your interviewer asks you a question--you can either answer, or don't answer. Even if your answer sucks, it is 10x better than saying, "I don't know." The reasons is behind the human memory. When your interviewer looks back, they will remember the person who gave an answer over the person who didn't. Trust me.
This same scenario can be placed in using contests as "badges." True, Maia's impression is correct--it is your marketable work that will sell you, not necessarily your accomplishments. That being said, an agent is more prone to remembering you if you had something to offer. The words "I won" stick in an agent's mind. It would stick in anyone's mind. And your name will inevitable pop in their head than the name of someone who had nothing to offer. But obviously, as Maia was pointing out, if the other person has a spectacular story then they will stand out.
My point is, having won a contest can no way hurt you (unless the contest is childish or sketchy, like the feeling I'm getting from this e Magazine. (No offense, I could easily be wrong))
Follow Writer's Digest