|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > Book, Magazine, and eZine Publishers > Flashing Swords > Flashing Swords Print magazine? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
John M. Whalen
flashg
      
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 379
| Posted 10/9/2006 8:51 PM (GMT -4) |   | Howdy Daniel,
I've been following this discussion with interest over the last several days. I know that print pubs in general are on the decline. In the newspaper game, which I'm somewhat familiar with, circulation figures are dropping like a stone down a well. In a way, newspapers are committing a kind of electronic suicide by offereing on-line versions for free. The theory is that advertising revenues from the on-line newspapers will be an additional source of income. It aint happening. People are dropping the hard copy newspaper and just reading headline and stories on screen. The Washington Post just offered an early out for its staff and lost 70 of their editorial staff, including some big names like Tom Shales, the TV critic. He's continuing as a freelancer, I think. The point is every paper in the US is losing money.
So the idea of starting new print magazines is probably risky at best in todays climate, if not downright foolhardy. Yet there are mags that survive and do quite well. But I'm talking about mass market mags. So I'm wondering why PitchBlack is only thinking in terms of small niche markets. From what you've been saying, Daniel, you envision only small mags supported mainly by the people writing for them. How is that going to make money? And if it wont' make money, why do it? And not only that doesn't it just keep the publication limited in terms of creativity if you just have the same dozen people writing stories?
I don't know what resources are available to Pitchblack, but if you are thinking of a print publication, why not go all the way? A mass market publication sold by subscription as well as retail. And why limit it to just one little niche like S&S. Why not something with a wider scope.
DARING ADVENTURE MAGAZINE, or TALES OF ADVENTURE or some such title, offering stories of different genres. A sword and sorcery, followed by space opera, horror, followed by adventures in the orient. Even a comic page (like Catspaw). You know what I mean? BUT you would have to include bigger name writers. Mix them in with the new and up and coming like Nathan, Hocking, Shrews, etc.. . Basically what your'e doing with Lords of Swords, but not as limited in the type of story.
I can't agree with the concept that the only ones who will support this type of pub are those who write them. There are many people out there craving these kinds of stories, who don't know the first thing about how to write one. And aren't interest in trying.
You know more about publishing and markets in this field than I do. Maybe the idea is unrealistic if not impossible Do you really think such an idea would not work? Have you done any research on something like this?
John
PS I mistakenly posted this as a new topic. Sorry. some day i'll get the hang of posting here. Please delete the new topic post. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 10/9/2006 9:26 PM (GMT -4) | | John,
I never said there weren't readers who aren't writers, I said they don't read print periodical SF magazines and by and large that seems to be the case.
I'm not averse to making FS a print pub if we can get upwards of 50 subscribers; right now we have 19 pledges. I have zero interest in trying to float a print pub to retail stores; as far as I know there are no "returns" in the newspaper industry, but there sure are in the book and magazine industries! There is just now way I can see a print SF pub, that is distributed to retail stores, succeeding without the backing of a rich patron or mega corporation; even then, you may have trouble finding readers. I am saying: even with a six-figure PR budget I'd predict gloom.
SCI FICTION paid upward of ten cents a word for fiction, published award winning and critically acclaimed SF by superstar writers and had a superstar editor and had an entire cable channel looming behind it, plus an enewletter wiht over 100,000 subscribers and it still failed....
And that was an *e* zine! Imagine the toll had it been print! Even a quarterly pub like Black Gate runs into the tens of thousands of dollars per issue to print and that's not counting promotion. With less than 1k subscribers and sales (I'm guessing) there is NO question of breaking even, you won't.
People say ads, but that is a myth for the most part as well; print pubs almost never sell out their ad space. Even big mainstream print pubs are a huge risk.
The publishing world is changing. And even it weren't print SF magazines were *always* a very dicey game and not one I'd be willing to tackle without good cause!!! Forget the debt you'll go into -- think about the thousands of hours you'd have to cram into the pub. Imagine keeping up *one* webpage or blog regularly now times that by a thousand and you'll get an idea of what bi-monthly or even quarterly pubs face. It's really rough.
Daniel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John M. Whalen
flashg
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 379
| Posted 10/9/2006 10:45 PM (GMT -4) | | Daniel,
Well, you're right. The kind of mag I'm thinking of would take big bucks, and probably the only way realisticallly it could be done would be to partner with some bigger outfit. But then Pitchblack and Flashing Swords would lose their autonomy and pretty soon you start turning out a Readers' Digest version of FS with recipes for S&S heroes favorite dishes (Savory Thipdar Soup!). It's depressing but the name of the game in business, including publishing, is megacorp. A few media giants control it all. Better to stay small and independent, I guess. But wouldn't it be nice to see a monthly Adventure magazine on the stands with old pulp style covers featuring heroes in pith helmets rescuing buxom babes from the grasp of leering gorillas. Never gonna happen.
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul
Avid Reviewer
Date Joined Sep 2005
Total Posts : 177
| Posted 10/9/2006 11:02 PM (GMT -4) | | SCI FICTION paid upward of ten cents a word for fiction, published award winning and critically acclaimed SF by superstar writers and had a superstar editor and had an entire cable channel looming behind it, plus an enewletter wiht over 100,000 subscribers and it still failed....
I'm going to have to disagree here. The term failing is not appropriate for how SCIFICTION ended. Like you said above, they paid highly, received a great number of submissions, and ended up publishing many award-winning stories. All while being backed by Ellen Datlow and SciFi. This could have gone on for many years, probably a lot more if they had just dropped the pay rate down to five cents. But SciFi decided that it, the company, did not want to spend money on the e-zine any more. SCIFICTION did not fail at all. Datlow did not give up on it, the company above her did.
When the news broke of SCIFICTION's demise, there was an uproar online. Blogs shouted despair! How could it be? Readers and writers were saddened to hear that it was being cancelled and there was nothing they could do about it. No fundraising, no donations, nothing. I'm pretty positive if they were allowed to donate money to the cause that they, the loyal readers and supporters, could have saved SCIFICTION. Nowadays, when an e-zine dies (Deep Magic) or a print magazine (Amazing Journeys) kicks it there is barely any response and the publications are soon nothing more than memories. SCIFICTION is still an important part of the SF world. The archives are still available for readers and are visited almost daily. Clearly, it did not fail.
Blog - http://wistfulwritings.blogspot.com/
Upcoming stories:
"The Dealer's Hands" in Shimmer's Spring 2006 issue
"Always Greener" in Shimmer's Summer 2006 issue
"Blood Hungry" in The Horror Library's April 2006 issue | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 10/10/2006 1:29 AM (GMT -4) | |
Paul said...SCI FICTION paid upward of ten cents a word for fiction, published award winning and critically acclaimed SF by superstar writers and had a superstar editor and had an entire cable channel looming behind it, plus an enewletter wiht over 100,000 subscribers and it still failed....I'm going to have to disagree here. The term failing is not appropriate for how SCIFICTION ended. Like you said above, they paid highly, received a great number of submissions, and ended up publishing many award-winning stories. All while being backed by Ellen Datlow and SciFi. This could have gone on for many years, probably a lot more if they had just dropped the pay rate down to five cents. But SciFi decided that it, the company, did not want to spend money on the e-zine any more. SCIFICTION did not fail at all. Datlow did not give up on it, the company above her did. When the news broke of SCIFICTION's demise, there was an uproar online. Blogs shouted despair! How could it be? Readers and writers were saddened to hear that it was being cancelled and there was nothing they could do about it. No fundraising, no donations, nothing. I'm pretty positive if they were allowed to donate money to the cause that they, the loyal readers and supporters, could have saved SCIFICTION. Nowadays, when an e-zine dies (Deep Magic) or a print magazine (Amazing Journeys) kicks it there is barely any response and the publications are soon nothing more than memories. SCIFICTION is still an important part of the SF world. The archives are still available for readers and are visited almost daily. Clearly, it did not fail.
Why did they ditch it then? If it was succeeding on some level close to the reason they'd started it then why did they close it? (not arguing; I'm curious).
I did peruse it. (ED's reputation is impeccable and my limited HWA corespondance with her was also great because she was so low-key). I'd always hope they'd publish something like the stuff that makes it on cable channel -- Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Hammerhead The Frenzy, Stargate (okay Hammerhead was a joke) reruns of Road Warrior amd Escape From New York ect, but it seemed literary minded -- I found that a strange disconnect--but I'm a lowbrow. (really look at that forehead, sloping over a potato nose, I wasn't born with that nose, I really had to piss a lot of people off to get it  ).
SCIFICTIONS closing struck me about as hard as if RoF closed, on a personal level -- but I am interested why Sci Fi corp would kill something if it was working for them on the level they had intended.
Change of management maybe?
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 10/10/2006 12:41 PM (GMT -4) | |
Daniel said...SCI FICTION failed *economically* guys, that's what I meant. If not, the plug would not have ever been pulled. No-one pulls a plug on an economically positive endeavor.... Sure, SCI FICTION rocked on quality, but even Datlow was disappointed in the # of readers, and the discussion forums were full of tumbleweeds.It was not succesful proportionate to the backing it had. Now what could have an *adventure* centered e-pub done wiht the same corp backing and high profile awards, and backing and pay-rate???? Up for discussion, I guess, but I still wouldn't want to try it in print.
Yeah, Paul seemed pretty caught up with Sci Fiction so I didn't want to be too blunt (my grandmother never made any money in her life really either but I was still tore up when she passed) but "yeah." If it was working it wouldn't have failed and I always thought it had that whisper-rep of being accolade heavy and reader short.
I guess (guess don't know) but maybe they thought the readers for Sci Fi were somehow different than than the viewers for the channel? I mean come on: look at the sales demographic for commercials on that channel...is somebody who's flipping over Zombie Kill Kill Kill on the X-box going be highly likely to suddenly go "I want to read something literary now." ? (well yes, but not in numbers).
I don't know...sounds like I'm bashing SF but I don't really mean it that way, just that I never understood the disconnect. You know who'd be big with the demo? Mathew Rielly (Ice Station, Temple, Contest, Scarcrow and some jet-jockey cartoon script making him a million dollars): but I know the reading editors at SF would have laughed themselves silly.
Click on http://www.matthewreilly.com/ and read "The Mine" short story to see the direction I'm talking about. This guy is an international best seller and has fanboys like Star Wars -- yet I have a hunch most critics would be snickering themselves into a migraine at his tradecraft.
Okay I wandered a little. You know who I'd wish would piggyback a magazine projection? What in the hell ever that magazine is that I see all the time giving the shakedown on video games (GOd I wish I could remember the name). If'd they put 1-4 stories throughout the issue--short fast ones--then more exposure would be gained to audiences not currently picking up short story pubs and maybe there'd be bleed over. Considering their newstand saturation they'd prob pay all right too.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 10/10/2006 12:54 PM (GMT -4) | | I guess (guess don't know) but maybe they thought the readers for Sci Fi were somehow different than than the viewers for the channel?
***
I think they (if "they" means the SCI FI CHANNEL CORP) thought, and probably correctly, that short SF is no longer a viable medium in this tech-heavy/entertainment drenched era. It is obsolete. And that is a fact at the big corp level in America; thre is no serious player who shows the slightest interest in short SF. Although interest in SF in almost every other concievable medium including print fiction is at an all time zenith.
If by "they" you meant SCI FICTION'S editorial staff (which was just Datlow, I think) she would have published the same stories by the same writers no matter what pub or venue she was editing in the SF field. That was probably one of her gaffes (if she made any) -- not specifically searching for web-friendly fiction, per say, NOT trying to tie-in her ficiton selections to the Sci-Fi channel's programming, not making a play for the younger audience but sticking with her usual mature, agnostic, thinking-person's, dystopian sci-fi and horror, plus loads of spec-lit, deeply esoteric spec-lit, for which there will never be more than a coterie audience.
She had the name to get the gig at the SCI FICTION slot, and the political savvy to engineer repeated Nebulas and etc, but in the long run, her editorial vision seems out of synch with where popular sentiment evolved, away from cyberpunk and dystopia and intellectual sci-fi right back to Paolini and Rowling in numbers that SCI FICTION despite its obvious merits, and despite being free of charge, could have never commanded.
Daniel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
James Enge
Maker
Date Joined Jan 2006
Total Posts : 207
| Posted 10/10/2006 3:07 PM (GMT -4) | | I'm getting in on this late, as I've been travelling. I tried to post something on Saturday, actually, but the fershlugginer dial-up connection I was using conked out on me.
I'd pay to subscribe to Flashing Swords. (I bought and enjoyed Lords of Swords, so I've already put at least some of my money where my mouth is.) But I don't know if a print magazine or a "here's a sample of a story, pay for the rest" model is the way to go. Making people pay for site content is often a quick trip to irrelevance on the internet. (Consider the fate of the NYT's columnists under their TimesSelect program.)
The best approach, it seems to me, is the two tier system: a couple of free stories/features on the web, and some more that are subscriber-only. The subscriber-only stuff could be PDF/rtf/HTML files accessible by password (like the stuff at Baen's Universe), cutting out all those printing and postage expenses.
I wonder if raising word-rates is really a goal to shoot for, though. I know that, traditionally, pay rates have been the method by which to sort the pro from the semi-pro from the purely amateur... but, in fact, no one is a magazine pro anymore, not in the sf/f genres. There just aren't enough outlets publishing enough fiction at high enough rates for someone to make a decent living by writing for magazines.
What might make a real difference to the 'zine's long-term stability and buzz-worthiness, though, is if it came out more frequently. The more often and more reliably a site is updated the more likely people are to visit it. That's the way a readership can snowball, assuming readers like what they find.
And there's where I should probably shut my pie-hole. But something has been on my mind ever since issue 7 came out, and I might as well mention it here. I wonder if it's such a great idea to have the cover of Shrewsbury's The Whore of Jericho on the TOC page. I'm not knocking Steve Shrewsbury, who's a fine writer, or the book, which I haven't read. But between the title and the cover it gives a strong and not necessarily positive impression. I know a couple of people who went to the TOC page and declined to read further. Which is a shame, because there are some fine stories in that issue. But not everyone who is going to enjoy Berg's "Demon Heart" or Tarbox's "Detour at Abbinford" (or Shrews' own "Branwen's Soul") is going to be impressed by this stuff. The readership for Flashing Swords is already a niche audience; it seems like a mistake to narrow it down unnecessarily.
I suppose that's enough shooting at my own foot for one afternoon.
JE
James Enge
"Turn Up This Crooked Way" (selected by Rich Horton for his "Virtual Best" of 2005) in Black Gate 8
"Payment Deferred" in Black Gate 9
"A Covenant with Death" in Flashing Swords 6
"A Book of Silences" forthcoming in Black Gate 10 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Dan Nelson
Hermit Troll
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 136
| Posted 10/10/2006 3:24 PM (GMT -4) | | Just back from vacation. I would subscribe for the $25.
Although it is curious to me that it was the free ezine that leads me to say that.
I ordered LOS through Amazon after seeing about it on the website because I wanted to see what kind of S&S was being written lately. I forget how I heard about the website. It may have been some random search or link (don't remember exactly). Then I read several issues of the e-zine which lead me to order Sages and donate. Without the free ezine, I would probably have just order LOS and that would have been it.
Not being a writer, at least outside of my daydreams, I am curious how important a per-word increase is to the authors in this forum. How much of an impact would that have? Whatever the answer, keep on writing! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 10/10/2006 3:32 PM (GMT -4) | | What might make a real difference to the 'zine's long-term stability and buzz-worthiness, though, is if it came out more frequently. The more often and more reliably a site is updated the more likely people are to visit it. That's the way a readership can snowball, assuming readers like what they find.
***
I think this is a very accurate observation.
***
And there's where I should probably shut my pie-hole. But something has been on my mind ever since issue 7 came out, and I might as well mention it here. I wonder if it's such a great idea to have the cover of Shrewsbury's The Whore of Jericho on the TOC page. I'm not knocking Steve Shrewsbury, who's a fine writer, or the book, which I haven't read. But between the title and the cover it gives a strong and not necessarily positive impression. I know a couple of people who went to the TOC page and declined to read further. Which is a shame, because there are some fine stories in that issue. But not everyone who is going to enjoy Berg's "Demon Heart" or Tarbox's "Detour at Abbinford" (or Shrews' own "Branwen's Soul") is going to be impressed by this stuff. The readership for Flashing Swords is already a niche audience; it seems like a mistake to narrow it down unnecessarily.
***
On this one, I differ in my opinion. The FS site exists in part to promote PB (and Carnifex Press) titles. That's one point; another is that the site exists to help promote the *current* titles.
And finally, no matter what we put on the ToC somebody would complain and "decline to read further." Prior to the Shrewsbury release we received a number of emails from FS supporters complaining the of "MZB" feminine-heavy feeling of the site, which in objective terms, is about as lucid as saying we're selling risque male-centered stuff, primarily.
But specifically, to the issue of sexual content, or what have you, I'll give you an example: Sages and Swords has experienced far fewer "impulse" shelf sales at retail stores than its predecessor Lords of Swords. Part of this drop in "impulse sales" can be accredited to the lack of any overt eroticism in the cover art or title. Sages, after all, boasts Tanith lee and RA Salvatore! Among others and we have had really good feedback on bioth anthos from those who have purchased and read it The only "dip" is in impulse buyers in retail stores.
If anything, I'd *rather* see the demographic for all of PB's heroic fantasy titles broaden out away from those who are offended or bored by displays of heroic fantasy eros and toward those who turned on by it because as is obviously demonstrable from the much touted "lack of support" among the exisiting SF audience (much of which is comprised of mature, stable, educated, aspiring writers) kind of points to a very low ceiling for maximum sell through potential. In effect, we already have that.....
What we need are new readers and contributors. And you'll see PB moving further into sexually provocative heroic fantasy, (via our specialty prestige print books and e-books and in conjunction with our new friends at Falling Angel Press) rather than further away, as we move along. This probably won't impact FS directly so far as content, although we do have something by one of Falling Angel's star writers slated for an upcoming issue. This guy is absolutely the most talented young fantasy writer I have read in years, (and, no, it's not Sean, though he has story upcoming at FS as well!); so I can't see anyone who loves sword and sorcery objecting to that.
I appreciate your excellent insight and support!
Daniel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 10/10/2006 3:53 PM (GMT -4) | | That's the way a readership can snowball, assuming readers like what they find.
***
Anything you put up and promote, even a mindless blog, will attract readers. Whether you can convert them into *supporters* for other projects is another question altogether. There are witless blogsites out there that attract 100X the traffic the FS gets each day, but they are incapable of harnassing that energy to accomplish very much, whether economically or influentially.
There would be readers, as many as FS has now, who supported what FS published if all we printed was fan-fiction with no literary merit whatsoever. We'd probably get more readers. If we did nothing but stories about cats, we'd get more readers. Just dragons, more readers.
I don't think folks are as discriminating about content as you may think; most people who come to FS don't actually read through the stories; they receive very few hits compared to the Sword and Sorcery main page or Cat's Paw, or the LoS author bios, even. You might make the case that *only* prospective contributors are even reading the fiction at FS; this seemed particularly true *prior* to issue seven. The prospective contributors do comprise a very vocal element in the forums, but that is a will-o-the-wisp, as shown by the "subscription drive" if you are talking about building a solid audience base. This is a solid contributor base, I could get that just by listing at Ralan or Duotrope....
However, and as always, we DO deeply value your support and creativity!!! And we hope to continue to make FS as strong as it can be....
Daniel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 10/10/2006 3:55 PM (GMT -4) | |
Dan Nelson said...
Not being a writer, at least outside of my daydreams, I am curious how important a per-word increase is to the authors in this forum. How much of an impact would that have? Whatever the answer, keep on writing!
I guess I can take a crack at this from my own somewhat confused viewpoint. I hope other LOS and FS writers share their view as well.
I'm conflicted because so many issues are in play here. Let's set aside the "more money is always better" easy view for a second -- that's obvious and generic.
The problem with pay rates leaves me chasing my tail. Writers write as well as they write at 1-cent a word as they do at 25-cents a word -- your skill is a constant (if growing over time) thing. If you didn't like my 3 stories in FS at current rates but Howard/Daniel did, then the same thing happens at 10 or 100-bucks a word.
And when it comes to genre if you want to write certain genres (and, gasp--lol--S&S is one) then you have to go to the places that pub them -- so since only a tiny fraction of people make a living writing shorts it's all 4 The Luv in a sense. 200$ bucks for a story feels better than $25 -- but come on. If your not making at least a grand or 2 per tale across many pubs you arent going to pay the rent. So write shorts for the luv and publish where you're appreciated (or to help promote your books).
However this is America. Money talks even when it doesn't make much sense. A writer judges his job performance on pay. So most people think pay rates equal skill or success and sub accordingly. And the pro-writer organizationss don't help. They have a union mentality that is understandable (if an editor can make more money by a paying a writer less what good business man wouldn't leap at that chance?). They don't think craftsmen should work for less than "scale": which is 5-cents a word.
The difference between 3-cents and 5-cents a word is laughable, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
So it leaves me confused. If I want to (for example) write stories I like to read I'm not going to make those Sci Fiction rates -- let alone New Yorker or Playboy.
But in general if you raise the pay rates you get more slush. More slush means hopefully those writers who only sub to certain ray-rates because they've built up a solid resume. Hopefully that means better stories -- which is suppossed to mean more sales.
But... when you're talking genre fiction that ain't always so. A newbie writing with a true luv of S&S and solid (if unspectacular) skills has a better chance of writing a tale other S&S fans will love than someone who only likes lit-spec and tries to deign to churn out some "easy" genre work for 25-cents a word.
And lastly there's the hope that if you raise pay high enough a John Ringo or Jordon or Paloni would consider writing a short and their name generates sales -- but mainly that level rights by invitation and negotiation anyway.
Do I sound conflicted? 
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 10/10/2006 4:10 PM (GMT -4) | | wonder if raising word-rates is really a goal to shoot for, though. I k
***
We're doing it because we love our contributors. It's that simple. That's why i got so uptight about people insinuating we're trying to take advantage of authors, when as I have tried to demonstrate the whole she-bang presently exists FOR them.
The author pay-rates will go up because it is good for maorale; like Nathan said, money talks even when it is irrational and I LIKE demonstarting this kind of affluence in the face of ridicule!  And predictions of gloom.
Now here's a secret I bet NONE of you realize: ALL of PB"s titles exist to help aspiring writers. If you look closely, you can see this for yourself. If you think we (or anyone else in short Sf) is getting rich from them you are incorrect in that assumption. If you think SF writers are finding footholds toward making careers doing what they love via PB, you are absolutely correct.
PB makes much more money on non short SF projects. It is very amusing, however, that so many people simultaneously envision small press publishers as greedy and -- at their ropes' end.
The relaity is: all the harping for support is to guve YOU a place to publish the fiction you love to write and say you love to read. No smoke and mirrors, nothing up our sleeves. It is something we all love, but it does take at least a token of economic support from its core audience to sustain. If we don't ask, you assume everyone *else* is taking care of busniess; if we *ask* for donations people start predicting our doom | |
| | |