|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > SFReader > Ask The Expert > What Makes a BAD Editor? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Daniel Ausema
Acolyte
      
Date Joined May 2007
Total Posts : 302
| Posted 7/5/2007 5:14 PM (GMT -5) |   | Yeah, I'm with the "only respond to accepted works" gripe. I've submitted once to a (non-genre) mag that had that policy, but it just seems ridiculous. How hard is it to have a form rejection and send that out (especially when it was an email submission in the first place--it's not even a question of folding the paper and putting it in the SASE).
Long response times are annoying, though if the market is upfront about that fact, I'm willing to put up with it (though it does make me less likely to submit to them). What really gets me, though, is when a market takes twice as long as their stated response time and then sends a form rejection. The only reason it should be taking that long is a) you're a new market and didn't know what you were getting into, in which case, shut down acceptances for a couple months to catch up or b) the story was one you considered for a second read before reluctantly deciding not to take it, in which case, mention that in the rejection (and ideally send a heads-up when you first decided to keep it for a second read).
Even worse is a form rejection disguised as a personal critique rejection--there was one market (I won't mention which) that held a story of mine beyond their stated response time and then sent a rejection that included some suggestions for what might be done to strengthen the story--the dialogue needs some work, etc. Fine, though the suggestions didn't seem to quite fit. And then I started talking with other writer friends, and they got the identical rejection, including one whose story had been praised for its dialogue by another editor who reluctantly passed on it. So we started talking to others and found that they sent that same exact form rejection email disguised with "suggestions" to everyone at the same time...just to clear out their pile of slush, it would seem. It's utterly classless.
Those are more gripes about the submission process, and I know an editor's job is much more than that, even if that's what we writers notice first. Beyond that, the most important thing for an editor is picking the right stories, poems, etc. for the market. So I guess a bad editor is one who picks poorly.
Twigs and Brambles (my writing blog) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 7/5/2007 5:48 PM (GMT -5) | | And then I started talking with other writer friends, and they got the identical rejection, including one whose story had been praised for its dialogue by another editor who reluctantly passed on it. So we started talking to others and found that they sent that same exact form rejection email disguised with "suggestions" to everyone at the same time...just to clear out their pile of slush, it would seem. It's utterly classless
***
Oh, I've done that! Not to 'clear out my slushpile" exactly, but to make a compromise between a SR and a personal rejection. That was when I was trying to not send any personal rejects. That's another reason for editors NOT to do it; the idea that the comments won't "make sense."
As to the form part: if you are responding to two-hundred emails (or more) a month, it is likely you will streamline your process. A single personalized para in an email is the same as a handwritten note on a paper rejection. As far as comments on dialogue or openings or any other standard reason, well, they *are* standard. So what else is there to say, really? There are a number of standard reasons why a work gets bounced: some editors use checklists, but I never cared much for those.
I don't know how others feel about them.
I did think the practice of single-para personlizations was a bad idea and gave it up in most cases. Originally, it truly was a concession to the "please send a comment" wing of submitters!
And to try to "right a wrong" I imagined I had experienced as a submitting writer -- never getting a reason for the bounce!!!
But as I said: I think non-personal responses are truly the best idea in most cases. Any rejection causes the submitter pain; there's no real way to do it nicely. The biggest thing writers forget about editors IMHO, is that editors see SO MANY manuscripts. Writers see only the rejection of their single work, case by case, editor by editor.
Writers interact maybe with half dozen editors in a month in official correspondence, but editors deal with hundreds each month. Writers can stew about each instance. And get miffed when the editor doesn't even remember them! But, even though I have no prejudice against elephants being editors, two-legged editors (with hands), while having weaker memories, seem to do a better job with keyboards and envelopes. LOL
Most editors should probably save the personals for something really special and just leave the rest to fate. After-all it's not an editor's job to be a literary agent or writing coach!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 7/5/2007 6:32 PM (GMT -5) | | I have no problem with Realms of Fantasy's checklist (or others...do others do that too?) or even a form response that says "These are some common reasons manuscripts get rejected." It was the apparent deceit of it--as if they were trying to get the writers to think, "Oh, they took a long time, but at least they responded personally."
***
Well, I can see that. And that wouldn't be good at all.
In my case, I was responding personally, as much as was possible. In the end, as you say, less is more with the back and forth rejections. Who's to say why any particular piece is rejected from any given market. I think it is sometimes as much luck and timing as anything else!
I never liked checklists because it seemed like the editor is reading your ms. with the checklist in hand and as soon as something comes up: check and bounce! A bounced check! <sorry for the bad pun!>
I hardly ever read and rejected subs at the same sitting. I didn't think it was fair to writers to approach the slush with a view toward "clearing it out," rejection slips in hand, pen tipped waiting... LOL
Now I've heard of "slush parties" and the like. That strikes me as grossly unprofessional and unfair.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hermit
Diavhrati Luminary
Date Joined May 2007
Total Posts : 1729
| Posted 7/5/2007 6:59 PM (GMT -5) | | Okay, so I'm really evil AND hypocritical.
I submit to them. And if I don't get a response within six months (granted I recall it) I send them something really over the edge and laugh myself to sleep thinking of this poor overworked dunghill having to pore over it and wonder if it was serious. Dangerous, but fun.
camille said...
Swashbuckler said...Upstream someone mentioned markets that respond only to stories they plan to accept. Man, that one pisses me off. I do not submit to such markets. Nor do I buy their publications. If they don't have the time or decency to even drop a rejection in the email, why would I consider doing business with them? Life is too short.
That was me, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I can't believe that's even tolerated as an acceptable practice within the industry.
Exile of my own dull vice. . . | | Back to Top | | |
|
erazmus
Master
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 4539
| Posted 7/6/2007 11:12 AM (GMT -5) | | Slush Parties.
Not always the evil they sound like. Sure, some are. But I've seen the process do right by us writers.
Got invited to a slush party at a con. It wasn't an open event-- the editors invited writers and eaders they knew, because we were at the Con and could all get together, and none of us had anything currently in the pile, and the editors trusted us to screen what had, due to an "unfortunate chain of events", turned into a nightmare of a slush pile.
Everything got read by at least two of us, everything got at least the first page read entirely by each reader. That was sometimes a chore. We reduced a six hundred 'script pile down to about fifty possibles that the editors took to consider. It took most of a day, and there were (I think) twelve of us. A lot of the obvious rejections were, well, really obvious-- wrong genre, poorly spelled, that sort. We didn't really do much pass around and mock, there were just too many to take the time.
I wouldn't want to submit to a market that did these regularly, as a routine part of the submision process, but sometimes you just have to do something.
Mike
Michael D. Turner
"Psyched Up" in _Turn the other Chick_-ed. E. Friesner-Baen books
www.baen.com
"Dutchman Rescue"in Continuum SF #6
www.continuumsciencefiction.com/orders.htm
"An Incident at Black Tongue Tavern" in _Bash Down the Door and Slice Open the Badguy_ from Fantasist Enterprises:
www.fantasistent.com/books/anthologies/BASH.php
www.fantasistent.com/books/anthologies/BASH.php | | Back to Top | | |
|
tchernabyelo
Acolyte
Date Joined Oct 2006
Total Posts : 457
| Posted 7/6/2007 11:31 AM (GMT -5) | | If you're confident about your writing, you have nothing to fear from a "slush party". Although I must admit I like to know who's going to be reading my story - I still can't deny that that much-derided "someone will steal my story!" fear occasionally surfaces in my backbrain. I feel comfortable knowing that magazines have named slush-wranglers (I read the blogs of several that I know of), and to pass a story out to complete and utter anonymity doesn't entirely sit well with me.
I've once subbed to a "we only reply to acceptances" market, and realised after I'd done it that it was pretty stupid. It's tantamount to a market saying "we're just SO important that we only have time to deal with those who MATTER", but anyone who knows anything about publishing must be aware that many best-seling, fantastically popular writers (right up to Dan Brown and J K Rowling) have had their works ignored and rejected, so who's to say who really "matters"? I know many magazines get swamped with subs and find it hard to keep up (and in particular have trouble because the moment they reject author X's first story, another one will be on the way, no matter how terrible the first story was and teh second story is certain to be), but if you can't handle that prospect, well, you shouldn't be an editor.
"The Box Of Beautiful Things" - IGMS#3
"The Man Who Was Never Afraid" - Abyss and Apex #19
"What The Sea Refuses" - Black Gate (forthcoming)
"When Winter Came" - ASIM (forthcoming) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jordan Lapp
Top 5 Poster
Date Joined Sep 2006
Total Posts : 2806
| Posted 7/6/2007 11:56 AM (GMT -5) | |
tchernabyelo said...
I know many magazines get swamped with subs and find it hard to keep up (and in particular have trouble because the moment they reject author X's first story, another one will be on the way, no matter how terrible the first story was and teh second story is certain to be), but if you can't handle that prospect, well, you shouldn't be an editor.
I don't get how authors can do this. I have ONE story that would be appropriate for Analog. If they reject it, I won't be sending another one, because I haven't written another hard sci-fi piece that would fit.
My writing strategy is to write broadly--a high fantasy piece here, a hard sci-fi piece there, etc, so I can have the maximum number of markets covered. Is this the wrong strategy? Should I be writing all hard sci-fi so I can do this?
Jordan Lapp
| | Back to Top | | |
| | |