The original version of this page can be found at : http://forum.sfreader.com/default.aspx?f=61&m=50440
| Posted By : Rob Santa - 8/29/2007 9:57 AM | | I've been encountering the concept that the short fiction market has two giant hang-ups: an unreadable amount of slush submissions that overwhelms all editors until they quit, and the publication of a select few writers who are editors by a select few editors who are also writers.
I am "guilty" of that second one. When stories from writers/editors I recognized came across the transom, I looked more forward to reading them than a name I didn't know. A small handful of them got acceptances. For the sake of full disclosure, that acceptance/rejection ratio is probably 1:5. The ratio for names I didn't recognize is about 1:20. Does that mean I gave those others preferential treatment? I don't think so. The reason I recognized their names is because I've read their work elsewhere. This has a direct reflection on their ability as a writer. A previously-published writer has a greater chance of selling their work than an unpublished one; I will accept that as a theorum.
So, also as a theory, if I wanted to maximize my efficiency, I would only read submissions by that 1:5 group and not the 1:20 group. I have an idea further down, but the concept is somewhat like having a first-reader: as the final decision-maker, I would prefer to look at the manuscripts that have the greatest chance of success. If I had someone going through that mountain of submissions and culling out the ones that person felt I would enjoy, then all I would have to do is read a select few. Think how many words JJ Adams has to read compared to Gordan van Gelder.
The idea is: when asking for submissions start with a select group. I've been on the receiving end of this as a writer several times. I receive a private email letting me know there's a new market and if I have anything appropriate. A few months later the general call goes out to all authors.
Is this good or bad? As an editor, I like it as a way to get a first look at the manuscripts you feel would have the best shot based on your experience with the writers, without having to separate them from the chaff. As a writer, I like it, provided of course I'm in that first group.
Yet I feel this kind of pre-screening furthers the idea that short fiction is for an "inner circle" of writers. In certain publications I keep seeing the same names over and over. Granted, much of the time I feel it is because of the writer's skill (and I can cite Carl Frederick who seems to have a piece in every issue of Analog as the perfect example - simply a brilliant writer). Still, sometimes I feel it is something of a buddy-buddy relationship going on.
What I'm asking here is how do you other editors, authors and readers feel about this practice?
Rob Santa Hopelessly Addicted Writer of Speculative Fiction
and CEO of Ricasso Press |
| Posted By : gwthomas21 - 8/29/2007 10:38 AM | A very good question, Rob. I can concur with much of what you said. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a "stable" of writers. (Just throw them some hay once in a while.) This is certainly how most magazines survive. People buy magazines the same way too. I can remember buying SF digests back in the '80s and being more excited there was a Silverberg story or a Leiber tale than with other issues where there wasn't. Still, those issues without big names often turned up new names which I later added to my favs. So, I think it is important to have those writers you trust, but keep at that 1:20 pile because you need new faces as well. What many mags do is reserve a certain amount of space for each. Now, anthologies are another animal and you should take the stories that you feel best suit the topic.
GW
G. W. Thomas has appeared in over 350 different books, magazines and ezines including Writer's Digest, The Armchair Detective and Black October Magazine. He draws the web comic CHUCK THE PENGUIN. His website is www.gwthomas.org |
| Posted By : Jordan Lapp - 8/29/2007 10:48 AM | We got "Rootless" by Peter Tupper (Sept 4th), which we feel is hugo worthy out of the slush. It's the first story he's published in ten years, which I suppose makes him new. If we wanted to maximize our efficiency we would have missed him.
It's actually more difficult for me when I get a submission from a writer I know (and have read before). Sometimes I have to reject them, which is the worst part of my job. It's MUCH easier to reject people you've never met before. How do you handle rejecting your friends?
Jordan Lapp
Managing Editor
|
| Posted By : Daniel - 8/29/2007 1:54 PM | I am all for having a "screener" or first reader. At PB, I had the best in the biz in Bill Ward and he really really was helpful..... I also solicited a fair number of stories for any project directly from writers in addition to open subs. I like your idea, Rob.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : erazmus - 8/29/2007 2:48 PM | Death to all editor/writer cliques!
No, not really. You don't work in a vacuume, nobody does. If you can't set aside and read the work from writers who you've heard of, know the work of and like, then what is the point of spending all the time building a reputation as a writer? I may not like the fact that I can't easily edge in to the regular contributors list at a big name pub (which is a joke, more people will read next months Amazing Spiderman issue than will every SF mag coming out between now and Christmas) but it is a process, and time, effort and talent (along with a little luck) can get me there eventually.
Now, if you weren't going to read the 1:20 pile at all, that I'd have a problem with. That is next years 1:5, someone has to replace the writers who go on to bigger and better things, or sink into dispair and mediocrity, or die.
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
"Stains" in Tales of the Talisman 3-1 www.zianet.com/hadrosaur/index.html
"Slushpiles" in Between the Kisses
www.samsdotpublishing.com/betweenkisses/TurnerSlushPileS.htm |
| Posted By : Hermit - 8/29/2007 4:38 PM | I thought it was pretty much standard to split a publication between solicited work (your pre-screen in this case) and open submissions. Even if you shotgun the solicitation, it is a solicitation. Slush, as I understand, is comprised of unsolicited submissions culled by an open call.
I'd say the best, most conscientious path is to put eyes on every submission. You have to be fair about it, but I don't hold that to mean absolutely objective as I don't believe that condition exists and am wary of folks who do (you don't actually have to be fair, but I like to think that we all want to be). So . . . when the slush piles too high, being only human, you have to start skimming and coming at it without dampening your bias. I usually have three baskets I toss hard copies into: green, yellow, red. Guess which each means. If I'm tired and know it, more goes in the yellow than the red simply because I know I'm being harsh - I'll give it another look later. Sometimes, when I'm really taxed or just feel like getting through it, I'll start rejecting on nits: no cover letter -Red; dumb font - Red; hand written - Red; hokey rhyme before I've even gotten past the title - Red. Stupid cover letter? RED Spelled my name wrong? RED Used the wrong stamp? Okay, now that would be just a bit out of the 'fair' range. You've read this far? Thanks. Point is, there's fair and there's more fair. And that is why luck IS involved in getting published. Bad luck gets your work into the hands of an editor who's having a bad day or hates dwarven-vampiric-elves who sideline as private detectives - and for their dayjobs edit Romance fiction for Whore-aquinn. It was a great story. You just got rejected because of something you couldn't control (unless, of course, he mentions this distaste in the guidelines, in which case you should likely be flogged for not reading them carefully enough - an editor should know better dammit! Which brings me to another interesting point: of course we all know better; question is whether we DO better.)
Rob Santa said...
I've been encountering the concept that the short fiction market has two giant hang-ups: an unreadable amount of slush submissions that overwhelms all editors until they quit, and the publication of a select few writers who are editors by a select few editors who are also writers.
I am "guilty" of that second one. When stories from writers/editors I recognized came across the transom, I looked more forward to reading them than a name I didn't know. A small handful of them got acceptances. For the sake of full disclosure, that acceptance/rejection ratio is probably 1:5. The ratio for names I didn't recognize is about 1:20. Does that mean I gave those others preferential treatment? I don't think so. The reason I recognized their names is because I've read their work elsewhere. This has a direct reflection on their ability as a writer. A previously-published writer has a greater chance of selling their work than an unpublished one; I will accept that as a theorum.
So, also as a theory, if I wanted to maximize my efficiency, I would only read submissions by that 1:5 group and not the 1:20 group. I have an idea further down, but the concept is somewhat like having a first-reader: as the final decision-maker, I would prefer to look at the manuscripts that have the greatest chance of success. If I had someone going through that mountain of submissions and culling out the ones that person felt I would enjoy, then all I would have to do is read a select few. Think how many words JJ Adams has to read compared to Gordan van Gelder.
The idea is: when asking for submissions start with a select group. I've been on the receiving end of this as a writer several times. I receive a private email letting me know there's a new market and if I have anything appropriate. A few months later the general call goes out to all authors.
Is this good or bad? As an editor, I like it as a way to get a first look at the manuscripts you feel would have the best shot based on your experience with the writers, without having to separate them from the chaff. As a writer, I like it, provided of course I'm in that first group.
Yet I feel this kind of pre-screening furthers the idea that short fiction is for an "inner circle" of writers. In certain publications I keep seeing the same names over and over. Granted, much of the time I feel it is because of the writer's skill (and I can cite Carl Frederick who seems to have a piece in every issue of Analog as the perfect example - simply a brilliant writer). Still, sometimes I feel it is something of a buddy-buddy relationship going on.
What I'm asking here is how do you other editors, authors and readers feel about this practice?
Incredibly prolific penster |
| Posted By : Gustavo - 8/30/2007 2:31 PM | As an author who isn't among the "invitees" at this point in my career, I think the practice is perfectly acceptable. It's natural that readers who enjoyed the work of a particular author would like to see more of the same (if the work maintains its level, of course). It is also natural that author's whose work you have read will be more likely to be accepted. There's a REASON you've seen their work before.
So I would say that your method sounds perfectly fair. |
| Posted By : von Darkmoor - 9/3/2007 9:43 AM | | Well I'm still not past the 'I have to find out why this submitting author thought this particular story would be to my liking, fit my stated requirements.' I'm getting more and more less inclined to do this, but as a whole, I'm reading stories until the end. Unless they've so shot themselves full of holes and I cannot take another word; and I've only received a handful of those. I've always believed in giving a writer a chance - like any other artist, most are fragile to some degree or another. They give their (hopefully) best shot, I at least owe them the courtesy of giving it my attention.
If I rejected based upon format, I would reject far more or at least far more quickly than I do currently. Many of my submissions are just plain wrong. Often very wrong. I've been very lenient on that, as computers are a wonder of the modern age - simply adjusting page and paragraph elements turns most anything into the format I want anyway.
I solicited/solicit a few specific authors. A few I would have I did not need to, they had stories to me before I could blink.  There are certain names I am thrilled to see in my inbasket and my personal inclination is to read them first - but I've stuck to reading my subs in the order received, each one basically having to beat out the winners or maybes that came before it. Even my solicited stories wait their turn. And I really have very few maybes. Most of those I do become Nos after further consideration. Convincing me upfront and immediately is become important. But I've noticed this distinctly happening less often in this second batch of submissions than in our first.
Every story should receive equal footing. At least upon submission. We all know that, I'm sure we all attempt to offer that. I think I've done that thus far, while still admitting that at reading I'm probably allowing an author I know and/or like a tad more leeway than those I don't.
But such is true of any profession that is built upon competition. Winners become known commodities and, as such, the names to beat. Incumbents are always more difficult to defeat than two new names facing off. Tis the nature of the beast, and it affects us all.
~~~~~~~~~~ Jason M. Waltz Fantasy Acquisitions Editor Staffs & Starships MagazineAssociate Editor Flashing Swords~~~~~~~~~~ Ever waltz with the Devil? Visit von Darkmoor's thoughts to find out (and read a review or two). ~~~~~~~~~~ Critical Eye of the Dragon Avatar courtesy of crystalwizard |
| Posted By : Edward Knight - 9/3/2007 8:55 PM | As long s that means you'e reading my work first, I'm all for it. 
Seriously, I don't see how that differs all that much from what the "professional" big house type publishers do. Only you're doing it on a different scale. I do the same thing. I know there are certain writers who have submitted to me in the past that I would like to read again. Do you think I leave their story at the bottom of the slush pile and read in the order they came in? Heck no. Every time Terry Gizelbach sends me a story I read it when it gets here. Why? because he's a darn good writer, readers ask for more of his work, and most importantly I can attribute sales to his name. It's called "reputation." There's nothing wrong with respecting a good one. When I planned UJII the first two people I contacted were Gizelbach and David M. Fitzpatrick. I did that to give them a headsup on the theme so that they could send me some work I was sure would be fantastic. As usual, they came through. If you look at the ToC for UJII you'll see that over half the writers are people I've published before. Some of them I contacted early, some just came through with good stuff. Once I read their work and decided whether or not I could use it, then I went to the slush to try to find a few gems to fill the rest. When I have published a writer more than once, I'm going to give him/her a bit more consideration than someone I've never heard of. The same goes for writers I've read and liked in other publications. But once I've published a writer two or three times I consider him/her to be one of my writers.
Of course there are those akward moments when you invite someone to submit. they do, but you don't like it. That's happened to me a few times. But most of the time there are no hard feelings because respect goes both ways. Most of the writers that I've published over and over again understand when I reject something. Fitzpatrick sent me one story three times. I kept telling him I didn't like the ending and he kept changing it. After the third time I think he gave up. Either that or he's still re-writing it.
Anyway, I've had a few invitations to submit over the years. It makes most writer/editors feel pretty good to be invited to submit to just about anything.
Edward Knight
Editor
Journey Books Publishing
http://www.journeybookspublishing.com
|
| Posted By : Edward Knight - 9/3/2007 9:02 PM | Oh, and I think it's funny when I get a sub from someone that I've read raving reviews about on this board and other places. You know, one of those up and coming folks that starts making a few waves. I think it's funny when I get a story from one of those writers and get all excited about it only to find out that I hate it. It happens.
Edward Knight
Editor
Journey Books Publishing
http://www.journeybookspublishing.com
|
| Posted By : MichaelEhart - 9/3/2007 10:20 PM | Ed, I don't think that is at all odd. Some of my favorite writers have written stuff that just completely misses. It happens.
Now I'm not an editor, but I'd wager the same thing holds.
Comedians bomb occasionally, even the greats. My favorite muscians cut tracks that make me scratch my head and wonder "wha?" --- same goes for every endeavor. Even Tiger Woods doesn't hit a hole in one each time he tees up.
Read me in 2007!
"The View From the Shotglass Floor" Ray Gun Revival, Feb 2007
"Voice of the Spoiler" The Sword Review, June 2007
"Servant of the Manthycore" The Sword Review, July 2007
"Darkling I Listen; and for Many a Time" Fear and Trembling, coming soon!
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, August 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, Summer 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Night of Shadows, Night of Knives" Magic and Mechanica, Fall 2007
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, October 2007
"The Stars by Law, Forbidden" Unparalleled Journeys II, November 2007
|
| Posted By : Jordan Lapp - 9/4/2007 2:41 AM | Everyone writes a dud every now and again. I don't like all of Ursula LeGuin's stuff. I also don't judge an author by just one story. Sometimes people send you trunk stories just under the wire cause that's all they have available.
Jordan Lapp
Managing Editor
|
| Posted By : Lyn - 9/28/2007 3:38 PM | | Jordan wrote: It's actually more difficult for me when I get a submission from a writer I know (and have read before). Sometimes I have to reject them, which is the worst part of my job. It's MUCH easier to reject people you've never met before. How do you handle rejecting your friends?
I agree - and have only been editing/publishing my zine for 3 months!  But I think if the author has potential I'll make that clear in the 'rejection' email - and ask for a re-write or another submission. I try not to ask for more stories simply to be polite...a couple of authors I don't want to hear from again, lol.
But as for slush vs solicitation, my first couple of issues (ResAliens is a no-pay zine) I looked for stories on blogs by authors that weren't big names or "published authors" and asked to re-print their story for my startup. This helped me gain a bit of a small audience and a bit of buzz as they told their friends that their story is now "published" albeit on a free zine. Hey, at least the story can get a bit of a broader reading audience. And that's one of my main goals right now with RA. Thanks for your thoughts.
Oh, and I have started receiving submissions - I'll have to check but I think I've accepted a third of the stories people have sent me and I'm pretty happy with the quality. You'll have to decide for yourself. (hint hint) 
Lyn, Founder of Residential AliensSpeculative Fiction from the Seven Stars |
| Posted By : crystalwizard - 10/6/2007 10:34 PM | Jordan Lapp said...
How do you handle rejecting your friends?
Same way I handle firing my friends, if I have to (and I've had to in the past). You keep in mind that you're both peers, you're both people with feelings, you try to be polite and you make it plain you're not rejecting the person, you're rejecting the 'job/work/object'
If that's too painful for you, then state clearly that you won't accept submissions from people you know and why. There's nothing wrong with that. |
| Posted By : Hermit - 10/12/2007 10:50 AM |
And it's always the writers we hear about needing to "grow thicker skin"! What a hoot.
Actually, I don't particularly care to reject any work. I prefer to workshop it if possible. I'm grateful that so many poets are so bashful that they never reply to my offers with suggestions.
It ruins my day though to get something from a friend/acquaintance of whom I have a high opinion and find it par or below. Sometimes it feels like an insult and I get a little sore for awhile. Other times I'm just really disappointed. Writing the rejection is challenging, but the rejection itself is simply a part of the process.
One thing I've noticed lately that really struck home. I almost always pull my punches unless I seriously want to insult a contributor for one reason or another (usually to either discourage them into never writing again if they're that weak, or to piss them off so much that they make a serious go of it and drop their cavelier pretenses in favor of serious crafting and skill-building). I've been in the lit-crit business long enough to realize that maybe I just missed where the author was going for some reason. So I seldom make judgement statements like: "your characters are flat and not believable"; "your plot is confusing and rambles"; "this story lacks a believeable premise"; "your POV is confused and inconsistent". Instead, I state in very deliberate terms that I noticed this or that and that I think the story would benefit from this or that. More often, though, I refrain from such impotent rhetoric and offer either no advice or detailed advice.
footnote: the above statements are quoted from critiques of my own work. Each is deeply faulted for one reason or another -- not wrong, per se, but deeply faulted. Just because we don't see it, doesn't mean there's not a good reason for certain things to seem less than watertight. We lose sight of that, and we're just voracious readers with condescending attitudes and opinions of dubious worth.
crystalwizard said...
Jordan Lapp said...
How do you handle rejecting your friends?
Same way I handle firing my friends, if I have to (and I've had to in the past). You keep in mind that you're both peers, you're both people with feelings, you try to be polite and you make it plain you're not rejecting the person, you're rejecting the 'job/work/object'
If that's too painful for you, then state clearly that you won't accept submissions from people you know and why. There's nothing wrong with that.
Putting the pun back in punisher!
Blog: http://bitterhermit.wordpress.com
|
| Posted By : Gustavo - 10/12/2007 12:43 PM | Don't worry about it so much. Writers are used to rejections (or they wouldn't still be writing). Getting a rejection from someone you know is just another case of "the story wasn't good enough" (or didn't fit, or whatever). It's the story, not the writer, eing rejected. If a writer can't see it, maybe you should gently explain that, while he might have a future in landscaping or chiropracty, further writing might lead to suicide.
I've had stories rejected by every editor on this board (I think - pipe up if I missed anyone!). But it makes no difference on a personal level. I'm still rooting for their mags and books to sell out, and for them to become very rich (or at least not lose any money!!!) off of what they're doing. And next time, hopefully, I'll send them something good enough. Most authors I've had contact with seem to have the same attitude... |
| Posted By : darkbow - 10/12/2007 8:39 PM | Going back to Rob's original post, I think he's right there are plenty of writer/editors or editor/writers out there, but I think there are also plenty of us (like me) who are just writers. I've had a couple of offers to become an editor, one for a magazine and one for an anthology, but so far I've turned them down. For me it's a matter of time. I have so little time to write as is, I don't want to take on other duties that would take away from my writing time. Call me selfish.
But this brings up a point: Are there any editors out there who are only editors, who don't write (at least not regularly)? Just curious.
P.S. I don't think I've been rejected by every editor on this board, though I've been rejected by quite a few. The rest of you will just have to wait your turn.
www.tyjohnston.blogspot.com
"Hot Off the Press" now available in Ray Gun Revival #25. |
| Posted By : Gustavo - 10/15/2007 11:20 AM |
crystalwizard said...
I haven't had the chance to do that yet!
I'll definitely have to fix that as soon as I get a suitable story written! |
| Posted By : David de Beer - 10/15/2007 4:25 PM | | Are there any editors out there who are only editors,
there should be:
Gordon van Gelder and John Joseph Adams? They don't write, to the best of my knowledge.
Sheila Williams?
Andy Cox?
one or two of the ASIM editor pool don't write.
But for the most part, it's a writer/editor thing
|
| Posted By : Gustavo - 10/15/2007 6:20 PM | | Ian Redman at Jupiter. In an interview linked from his website he claims he once sold a short story, but that the magazine fortunately folded before they printed it. |
| Posted By : Gustavo - 10/15/2007 9:00 PM | | His words, not mine! |
| Posted By : von Darkmoor - 10/26/2007 12:14 AM | I guess, at the moment, with nothing successfully published to date and my personal writing all but disappeared and definitely not regular, I'd have to say I am an editor only. Not intentionally; hopefully not for very long. So, unless you reword your definition, I'll have to answer up.
and Ty? Did you change avatars because of that poser? While this one fits your 'Rabbit Lord' title better, I liked the bat best.
|
| Posted By : darkbow - 10/26/2007 3:45 AM | HvD, I changed it in part because of the poser. I wanted something a little more original that wasn't as likely to show up here used by someone else.
I originally wanted something from "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," but thought no one would recognize it. I figured more folks would know Count Orlock from "Nosferatu."
www.tyjohnston.blogspot.com
"Hot Off the Press" now available in Ray Gun Revival #25.
"Deep in the Land of the Ice and Snow" upcoming in the Flashing Swords anthology, "The Return of the Sword: A New Age of Heroic Adventure." |
| Posted By : kaolin fire - 6/25/2008 11:36 PM | I'm perfectly comfortable rejecting after a few sentences, though I do probably give folks I've published before a greater benefit of the doubt. The better the story is, the more I hope it pays off at the end, the more of a time sink it is... :)
We've solicited a few pieces for publication, but the huge majority comes through the slush, like Christmas. ;) ((not counting art. We've had a hard time courting artists in general, so most of the art we've published has been solicited via deviantart or flickr))
Greatest Uncommon Denominator Magazine - literary + genre fiction, poetry, art, and articles
(see our submission guidelines) |
|