Thoughts on an E-zine publisher.
c. earl nelson
this is absolute bullshit. as one who has played in the little game of
editor/publisher as well as the game of submittee, i can tell you that many
fine writers place work in reviews which offer no cash payment, and that
includes myself.
while it could be argued that an ezine editor is saddled with far less
production overhead one cannot argue that the traditional print medium is an
expensive endeavor. even the smallest of projects carried out on the
smallest scale can give the wallet major pains in the ass.
being paid in copy is not a terrible thing, nor is it intended as an insult,
a sleight against your tenuous reputation. giving you copy as payment means
monetary loss for the publisher the same as if cash were awarded. in fact,
very rarely will you find reviews which are turning profits; reviews tend to
suffer many pitfalls and invariably fail after short copy runs.
what is most important to us here, both as writers and as publishers?
creating, disseminating, provoking, being heard from all sides. if you have
entered into either pursuit with profit as motivation, you are sorely
misguided.
now, there is profit to be made in fiction, table books, journalism, etc,
and small amounts of cash can be harvested from playing the contest game
and pursuing grants, but it can be safely assumed that one might live a
lifetime writing very solidly either poetry or prose or a combination
thereof and receive little compensation beyond reputation, if that.
before you go off halfcocked about an editors refusal to compensate you
monetarily for what you feel is worth a mint, sit on the other side of the
desk and give it a go. your delusions should quite quickly melt away.
you might also search for an agent and see how much more you get out of your
epic work.
good luck.
c. earl nelson
Marek Lugowski
In article <6emo1i$jva$1...@news.on>, Jensen <a...@peavine.com> wrote:
...
>I think it's also important to remember that Web-based endeavours,
>whether writing-related or not, are seeing a drastic decline in viable
>ways of generating revenue.
>
>Content, the only thing on the Web worth money, must be offered to the
>customer (reader/client/whatever) for free.
>
>Advertising banner ads are seeing a huge drop in click-through rates.
>
>I believe we're in a lull between the first wave of making money on the
>Web (banner ads) and the big wave of making money on the Web
>(content-generated revenue).
>
>This applies to all WEb-based ventures, including E-zines.
Jen, there is the matter of mixed-media ventures, particularlry ones
not geared to making profit. Staffed by people who make a living
above and beyond THIS web-based activity, the nonprofit mixed-media
ventures could easily offer programming and web content for free --
and for cost or near-cost in print or multimedia. The time-honored
"we do it for the fun of doing it" contingent should not be lost on
anyone. The web is primarily NOT millions of available addresses, as
spammers would have us mistakenly believe. It is millions and growing
milions of tiny star systems, shining for free, plugged in for support
into their own livelihoods, the freedom of the presses we never had.
We are the homey grubs living in the anerobic hostile noise and gasy cold
shadow of multinational commerce and AOL links from pop music albums.
-- Marek Lugowski
president & editor
A Small Garlic Press
a 501(c)(3) Illinois Non-Profit Corporation
http://www.enteract.com/~asgp
co-editor (with katrina grace craig) AgD,
Agnieszka's Dowry ISSN 1043-1088
>cheers,
>
>jen
>
>the jam
>http://www.thejam.com/
>Vancouver's Source for Independent Music
--
-> ASGP/Agnieszka's Dowry (501c3): Free noMike noSignupSheet poetryNights
at Hoang Mai Restaurant, 5020 N Sheridan, Chicago, USA, North of Argyle,
Argyle Stop on Red Line Elevated Train, then West to Sheridan and Left
and storefront restaurant with red neon sign + my poster. Tue-Thu 7to9
Marek Lugowski
heh. The ISSN for AgD looked funny. Sure enough. Well, can't let that
go. Sorry:
-=- Agnieszka's Dowry (AgD) ISSN 1088-4300 -=-
http://www.enteract.com/~asgp/agnieszka.html
In article <6emp5d$l...@eve.enteract.com>,
Marek Lugowski <ma...@enteract.com> wrote:
....
>Jen, there is the matter of mixed-media ventures, particularlry ones
>not geared to making profit. Staffed by people who make a living
>above and beyond THIS web-based activity, the nonprofit mixed-media
>ventures could easily offer programming and web content for free --
>and for cost or near-cost in print or multimedia. The time-honored
>"we do it for the fun of doing it" contingent should not be lost on
>anyone. The web is primarily NOT millions of available addresses, as
>spammers would have us mistakenly believe. It is millions and growing
>milions of tiny star systems, shining for free, plugged in for support
>into their own livelihoods, the freedom of the presses we never had.
>
>We are the homey grubs living in the anerobic hostile noise and gasy cold
>shadow of multinational commerce and AOL links from pop music albums.
>
> -- Marek Lugowski
Robert Maughan
John Scalzi <jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply> writes
[...]
>I trotted out my 1998 Writers Digest and pointed out
>that nearly ALL of the "literary" magazines listed there (and there
>are about 100) pay cash for work, even if it is generally a
>digustingly low pittance.
[...]
We have the Writers'and Artists' Yearbook (UK) which I'm sure most of
you will know. ALL of the literary magazines pay cash, comp. copy sent
as a matter of course.
Writing for nothing is recreation, we're doing it now, but I cannot
quite get to grips with the word 'publication' applied to e-zines. I'm
sure I will, once I've seen a cheque. I publish in magazines here and
accept the going rate, often a pittance, and for poetry it is not
unusual to be asked to accept an ' ... insultingly low fee ... ' by
an editor on charm offensive. However, it is payment and payment as you
suggest, is the point.
My difficulty is in deciding the worth of e-zines, rather, of a zine
that may solicit work by broadcast, comparing it to magazines that I
know. I've looked at e-zines that do a good job of presentation etc.
and may contain work I like, or hate, or is of such a standard that I
would want to compete. I have appeared in one such. I'm not sure that
a writer can ask for payment from an e-zine run by amateurs, edited by
someone working for the love of it. I have no difficulty with similar
considerations about a paper magazine because I know there is Arts
funding etc, etc. and if they exist then they must expect no favours
from me.
It does seem to be a simple matter to 'publish' in e-zines; if you're
any good, there you are, the electric author and millions, so I'm told,
of eager readers are out there just waiting to adore you. Yeah right.
Not so easy in the real world. For example I submitted two short stories
and six poems to an Irish literary magazine, in June-ish 1996, had one
short story and three poems accepted, the short story published last
October, a poem this month and the last to come in a future issue. My
submissions list is rotating like a ... rotating thing and I know I'm
going to publish in other organs on this date, on that date, never or
maybe. I do writing because it's easy. It's being a storekeeper and
mailman that gives me the pip.
So if anyone has a list of e-zines that will take my writing tomorrow,
pay for it, and ask me for more, do please email me a copy.
RJM.
John Scalzi
I recently had an e-mail exchange with a soon-to-be e-zine publisher
who is asking for poetry and short prose submissions, but who is not
planning to pay the writers. I informed him that it's generally
considered polite to offer compensation to those who give your site
value. His (I'm assuming a he, though the first name is not
gender-specific) response was that even many of the most prestigious
poetry reviews don't pay cash, paying instead in copies.
At which point I trotted out my 1998 Writers Digest and pointed out
that nearly ALL of the "literary" magazines listed there (and there
are about 100) pay cash for work, even if it is generally a
digustingly low pittance. Given how low the pay is, I reasoned, by
offering something, anything, for the writing, he would insure a
high-quality literary magazine. His response, more or less, was to say
if I didn't like the conditions of being published in his e-zine, then
don't submit.
Well, fine, I won't. But I think this is as good a time as any to
remind other folks: your writing has value. DON'T give it away to
someone who won't even *consider* paying you upfront for your work.
Particularly for an e-zine: you're better off creating your own
webpage (it's easy, simple, and if you use Geopages or some other
services, free). You'll be paid the same as contributing it to these
"e-zines" -- which is nothing -- but YOU'LL be the one to benefit from
it.
A "publisher" who won't pay for work fundamentally expresses contempt
for the creators of that work. Don't allow it to happen to your work.
You and your work deserve more respect.
------------
John Scalzi, Freelance Troublemaker
http://www.scalzi.com
John Carle
<sigh>...
> I informed him that it's generally
>considered polite to offer compensation to those who give your site
>value. His (I'm assuming a he, though the first name is not
>gender-specific) response was that even many of the most prestigious
>poetry reviews don't pay cash, paying instead in copies.
Which is true.
>
>At which point I trotted out my 1998 Writers Digest and pointed out
>that nearly ALL of the "literary" magazines listed there (and there
>are about 100) pay cash for work, even if it is generally a
>digustingly low pittance.
And there are some which only pay copies. WD is hardly the last word
on lit. markets.
> Given how low the pay is, I reasoned, by
>offering something, anything, for the writing, he would insure a
>high-quality literary magazine.
The flip side being that writers who "give away" their work ensure a
low-quality literary magazine?
> His response, more or less, was to say
>if I didn't like the conditions of being published in his e-zine, then
>don't submit.
A response I would consider, myself.
>Well, fine, I won't. But I think this is as good a time as any to
>remind other folks: your writing has value.
<snip part of soapbox>
Indeed it does have value, and I would love to be able to pay the
writers who submit work to my "e-zine" - some day I hope to do so. As
it stands now, though, I can't. It's not that I won't consider it. I
just can't afford it. Gravity makes no money, and Jen makes a good
point that even websites that either charge for admission or have a
bazillion ads don't make much. I would submit that they don't get
much of a readership either.
So, whaddya do? Be content with your 100 mags that pay for poetry, I
suppose.
>A "publisher" who won't pay for work fundamentally expresses contempt
>for the creators of that work.
Bullshit. I'm trying to make a living as a freelancer too, so get
over yourself.
JC
(btw folks - Gravity 17 should be online tomorrow or Thursday)
************************************
Gravity: A Journal of Online Writing
http://www.mindspring.com/~ulysses/gravity/
John Scalzi
>before you go off halfcocked about an editors refusal to compensate you
>monetarily for what you feel is worth a mint, sit on the other side of the
>desk and give it a go. your delusions should quite quickly melt away.
Actually, I have. I ran an online humor site for a year and paid top
dollar (up to $250 per piece) for contributions -- and as you may
imagine, I got some very fine writing submitted to me. I have no
delusions on the matter -- I understand that you get what you pay for.
Be that as it may, I'm not talking about paying huge sums of money.
Looking at poetry magazines in print, some of them pay as little as $3
per page. I think this is scandalously low for the amount of work, but
it's at least something. You get higher quality material if you get
what you pay for -- for the amazingly low cost of $100 a month, you
can get 33 top-of-the line poems. I think $100 per month is not too
much to invest for a poem a day, plus two spares. You can't buy lunch
for that little.
If I WERE to start on online poetry magazine, I certainly wouldn't
assume people would write in it for free -- partly because *I*
wouldn't do that -- my time and my work is too valuable to give it
away. If I'm going to not get paid for my work, I'm going to put it on
my own site -- where I have control on how it's used and where it is
as readily available to the casual reader as it would be anywhere else
on the web, so the net literate value of the web is just about equal.
If someone wants to link to material on my site, that's jake with me
-- point is, MY site. My work. I control it.
Now, if you want to give away your work and let other people have
control it and possibly profit from it with no benefit to you, hey,
it's your work. Far be it from me to stop you. However, I will
maintain my opinion that you feel your work intrinisically has little
or no value.
John Scalzi
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:56:10 GMT, a...@peavine.com (Jensen) wrote:
>
>I think it's also important to remember that Web-based endeavours,
>whether writing-related or not, are seeing a drastic decline in viable
>ways of generating revenue.
>
>Content, the only thing on the Web worth money, must be offered to the
>customer (reader/client/whatever) for free.
>
>Advertising banner ads are seeing a huge drop in click-through rates.
>
>I believe we're in a lull between the first wave of making money on the
>Web (banner ads) and the big wave of making money on the Web
>(content-generated revenue).
>
>This applies to all WEb-based ventures, including E-zines.
This may be true, but how does this affect ME as a writer? If you have
a need (in this specific case, writing), you shuld be willing to
assign a value to it and pay for that value. If you do not, you will
not get that value, at least from me.
The money-generating concerns of the publisher are NOT the concerns of
the writer. From an income point of view, the difference between a
market that doesn't pay and a market that doesn't exist is very small,
particularly in a medium, such as the Web, where it is just as easy
for the individual writer to be his or her own publisher.
John Scalzi
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:55:32 GMT, uly...@mindspring.com (John Carle)
wrote:
>>Well, fine, I won't. But I think this is as good a time as any to
>>remind other folks: your writing has value.
>
><snip part of soapbox>
>Indeed it does have value, and I would love to be able to pay the
>writers who submit work to my "e-zine" - some day I hope to do so. As
>it stands now, though, I can't. It's not that I won't consider it. I
>just can't afford it.
Aw, you break my heart. If you're looking for sympathy for your
poverty, look somewhere else. Frankly, if you can't PAY, you shouldn't
consider yourself a publisher. All you're doing is sucking off the
talent of others, primarily people too gullible (or with too little
self-esteem) to ask for money.
>>A "publisher" who won't pay for work fundamentally expresses contempt
>>for the creators of that work.
>Bullshit. I'm trying to make a living as a freelancer too, so get
>over yourself.
You're going to do a poor job of it, if you give your work away.
I say again: A publisher who won't pay for work doesn't respect his
(or her) writers. Treat yourself with more respect than those people.
Writebabe
>
>This may be true, but how does this affect ME as a writer? If you have
>a need (in this specific case, writing), you shuld be willing to
>assign a value to it and pay for that value. If you do not, you will
>not g
Boys! and Girls!
Remember a few days back I shared that the word for the day was
Diversity! Weren't you listening? It makes me go crazy when you all argue
about there only being one way to do things!
I sent some poetry to a literary journal once and they accepted it (I'd
worked on that sucker for months and it was good), but no pay. I also wrote a
song that was performed in a local program, play. I didn't get paid. I've
written numerous articles on parenting for a small press newspaper. No pay.
But, I did get paid. Confused?
The thrill of seeing my by-line, the huge fulfillment I got from
hearing my song played and sung and people clapped and the standing ovation was
priceless. The comments I got in the newspaper about my parenting/abuse
articles was neat.
Is money the only viable payment? If you say so, I think you are
rather shallow. Payment in the form of accolades and applause and satisfaction
has staying power.
Now I write for payment. It's very nice too. But I cannot say that
it's better except that it helps pay the bills. Do you get my point? Each has
it's place, Boys. Allow people to do what they do for their own personal
reasons. We are all different and that needs to be ok.
Missy
Loves to be different and loves to feel.
Writebabe
c. earl nelson (afn0...@afn.org) wrote:
: this is absolute bullshit. ....
: before you go off halfcocked ....
One wo/man's bullshit is another wo/man's field of new grown hay!
Missy
Always stepping carefully over the bullshit
John Scalzi
On 18 Mar 1998 04:28:41 GMT, writ...@aol.com (Writebabe) wrote:
> Is money the only viable payment? If you say so, I think you are
>rather shallow. Payment in the form of accolades and applause and satisfaction
>has staying power.
Uh-huh. Cash is applause I can use to buy groceries.
I'm certainly not suggesting that there aren't other means of
compensation beside money; for example, I used to do music reviews in
exchange for concert tickets and CDs, an arrangement I found most
equitable. The point is, SOME compensation should be arranged.
As for a web "byline," without physical compensation (cash or other
such stuff) the byline is worth thepaper it's printed on. On the web,
every man and woman has the potential to be his or her own publisher.
Thus, the other intangible benefits of publication for publication's
sake evaporate. After all, when everyone has the power of the printing
press, the distinction in being printed alone is lost.
I ask you: what makes an "e-zine" any different than one's own web
page? The editorial process? No -- anyone who puts up a web page has
to decide what to put on and what to leave out, for time or bandwidth
reasons. Is it promotional? No -- unless an "e-zine" is paying for
advertising, its ways of announcing its presence are the same as mine
for my own web page -- through Yahoo and newsgroups (and if they are
paying for advertising, they damn well better be paying for writers).
And, obviously, if the "e-zine" isn't PAYING, then the pay is the
same: zero. All things being equal, you're better off with your own
web page.
There are hundreds of paying markets for fiction and poetry. Why NOT
try them first? Aim high, and work your way down the pay scale. Then
if you still feel the need to have the work "published" and you don't
want to bother with setting up your own web site (which can be a 10
minute process, if you don't get worked up over graphics), fork it
over to an "e-zine." They should be your "publishers" of VERY last
resort. Doing any less is selling yourself short.
Ken Jenks
Jensen wrote:
> I think it's also important to remember that Web-based endeavours,
> whether writing-related or not, are seeing a drastic decline in viable
> ways of generating revenue.
>
> Content, the only thing on the Web worth money, must be offered to the
> customer (reader/client/whatever) for free.
>
> Advertising banner ads are seeing a huge drop in click-through rates.
>
> I believe we're in a lull between the first wave of making money
> on the Web (banner ads) and the big wave of making money on the Web
> (content-generated revenue).
>
> This applies to all WEb-based ventures, including E-zines.
That's odd. Our profits are steadily increasing. We've been in the black
for over a year now, and I'm now in the enviable position of trying to
decide what to do with all of the extra money -- reinvest in better
artwork or invest in advertising. Or maybe take the staff to WorldCon
again.
We don't offer content for free. All of our fiction is pay-per-view.
Advertiser-sponsored content seems to be a complete bust here. I can't
find any advertisers willing to participate in our unusual advertising
system. But I'm paying authors royalties from the pay-per-view revenue,
and we're adding more and more top-of-the-line stories and big name
authors.
(My editorials are banner-ad-sponsored, not pay-per-view, but I don't
pay myself royalties on them. I probably should. Some of them are more
popular than the fiction.)
So I guess it depends on which Web site you're talking about. Some of us
are doing just fine.
Now if I could only find a few good advertisers, too....
-- Ken Jenks, Editor-in-chief, Mind's Eye Fiction
http://tale.com/ Short stories on-line
Mind...@tale.com
Advertisers wanted: Target your full-page ads by
age, sex, income and/or zip code. Better than banners!
John Scalzi
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:52:57 -0600, Ken Jenks <Mind...@tale.com>
wrote:
>That's odd. Our profits are steadily increasing. We've been in the black
>for over a year now, and I'm now in the enviable position of trying to
>decide what to do with all of the extra money -- reinvest in better
>artwork or invest in advertising.
Hell, Ken, use that money and start a poetry magazine. You can
apparently get that stuff for damn near next to nothing.
Jivvy
I must admit to finding this conversation most surprising. Any copy of
Poet's Market will clearly prove that (at least in the US) payment in
copies (not cash) is accepted practice. Granted, it's not the only
practice, but it is accepted.
And to state that not being paid for poetry devalues the writing? What
an absurd notion. Poets who know the small litmags do not base their
decision to submit on what they get paid, they base their decision to
submit on the quality of the magazine and how well it fits their own
writing. And there are *many* (if not most) outstanding small litmags
which pay only in copies.
Will I write someone's software manual for free? Of course not, there's
an excellent market for tech writers. But an excellent market for small
litmags?
How many do you subscribe to?
Claire
--
mailto:ji...@wockyjivvy.com http://www.wockyjivvy.com/
Classic Poetry and Not-So-Classic Art
["How do I love thee?" Yeah, we've got that.]
John Scalzi
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:14:10 -0500, Jivvy <ji...@wockyjivvy.com>
wrote:
>And to state that not being paid for poetry devalues the writing? What
>an absurd notion. Poets who know the small litmags do not base their
>decision to submit on what they get paid, they base their decision to
>submit on the quality of the magazine and how well it fits their own
>writing. And there are *many* (if not most) outstanding small litmags
>which pay only in copies.
And how might a Webzine pay in copies, I wonder.
Look, saying that there are many magazines that don't pay their
writers doesn't make it a defensible principle. It's merely that these
markets have managed somehow to convince their writers that the
"prestige" of being accepted is somehow better than being compensated
financially for the work. Good for them, in the sense that they keep
their costs down, but it makes me wonder about the good sense of the
contributors.
I don't believe I've said not getting paid devalues the value of the
writing: the writing is what it is. I have a lot of writing that I've
not been paid for that I am immensely proud of; some of it is up on my
own web site. What I have said is that any market that does not pay
its writers expresses contempt for the writers AND the value of the
work. It's an important distinction.
Again, it's your writing, so do what you want with it. But I think
it's fundamentally dumb not to at least TRY to get compensated for
one's work. Perhaps there ARE excellent poetry reviews that don't pay
their writers. I suspect, however, there are at least as many
excellent poetry reviews that DO pay their writers -- as I've said,
I've got a list of about 100 or so in my 1998 Writers' Guide (not
counting the dozens of other commercial magazines that buy poetry on
occasion). THOSE are the markets I'd hit first.
Perhaps if more poets aimed for these rather than contenting
themselves with the magazines that don't pay them fair value, you all
might finally get rid of the notion that you don't need to get paid
for your work.
John Scalzi
On further reflection, a couple of more comments
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:39:30 -0500, "c. earl nelson"
<afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>what is most important to us here, both as writers and as publishers?
>creating, disseminating, provoking, being heard from all sides. if you have
>entered into either pursuit with profit as motivation, you are sorely
>misguided.
This is the biggest load of crap in the history of loads of crap. As
Samuel Johnson once wrote (or said, this or something rather like
this), "Only a blockhead ever wrote other than for money." Lots of
folks wrote for money. Dostoevsky got paid by installment -- that's
why "Crime and Punishment" is so damned long. Shakespeare had payments
on the Globe Theatre to make. No one would say that their work
suffered from the cash-derived motivation. Profit is an excellent
motivation for writing, at least as good as any other, and certainly
no worse than most.
Now, I happen to write what I like more often than not, regardless of
whether or not it can sell. But certainly, I'm always looking for a
way to sell it, once it's written -- the more I get paid for my
writing, the less I have to work doing other things that I might find
distasteful, such as lifting heavy objects or asking people if they
want fries with that. So far, I've done very well by my writing, in
part because I INTEND to make money with it. Nothing misguided in
that.
By the way, if you enter into publishing without the intent of making
a profit, you WILL get your lunch eaten by those who DO intend to make
a profit. Publishing is a business. It is certainly a bonus to get a
publisher who loves art as much as they love the business, but it's
not necessary (or, from a business point of view, even advisable).
>now, there is profit to be made in fiction, table books, journalism, etc,
>and small amounts of cash can be harvested from playing the contest game
>and pursuing grants, but it can be safely assumed that one might live a
>lifetime writing very solidly either poetry or prose or a combination
>thereof and receive little compensation beyond reputation, if that.
I'm missing your point, here. I understand how little money there is
to be made writing poetry. Does that does not preclude one from
*trying*. If you don't at least *attempt* to get some financial
compensation for your work, than it's damn near axiomatic that you
won't make any money from it, now, isn't it?
Never in my LIFE have I heard so many people leap to the defense of
not even ATTEMPTING to clear some dough from their work. What's with
you people, anyway? Are you AFRAID of having some extra beer money, or
what?
John Carle
> Frankly, if you can't PAY, you shouldn't
>consider yourself a publisher.
Yet somehow, as if by magic, I still do.
JC
Jivvy
>as I've said, I've got a list of about 100 or so in my 1998 Writers' >Guide (not counting the dozens of other commercial magazines that buy >poetry on occasion). THOSE are the markets I'd hit first.
Yes, those are the markets most new poets hit first. And why not?
But as I said before, for many poets means/size of payment is not how
they base where they submit their work. A "fundamentally dumb" decision
on their part? No, a decision demonstrating solid knowledge of the
marketplace and respect for one's work that goes just a tad beyond the
desire to pick up a few bucks for beer money.
Robert Maughan
Kathy Vincent <vinc...@wfu.edu> writes
>
>
>New person alert ...
>
>Question is, do we roll out a welcome wagon
>and try patiently and politely to set him
>straight about John et al.,
>or do we just EVER so politely suggest he move along
>to our new wholly-owned subsidiary, alt.skunks?
>
>Kathy
>
The trouble with misc.writing is there's always some silly tart who
can't let a good trail lay.
Scalzi is good. You on the other hand, Kathy my dear, are a pointless
cunt.
RJM.
Jack Mingo
Robert Maughan wrote something useless, ending on:
>
> [...] pointless cunt.
I believe having a point on a cunt would defeat many of its most
interesting uses.
Jack (Get a clue, Mon) Mingo
John Scalzi
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:39:31 GMT, uly...@mindspring.com (John Carle)
wrote:
>> Frankly, if you can't PAY, you shouldn't
>>consider yourself a publisher.
>
>Yet somehow, as if by magic, I still do.
Yes? Well, use some of that magic to pull a couple of bucks out of
your hat for your writers, cheap-o.
John Scalzi
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:55:25 -0500, Jivvy <ji...@wockyjivvy.com>
wrote:
>But as I said before, for many poets means/size of payment is not how
>they base where they submit their work. A "fundamentally dumb" decision
>on their part? No, a decision demonstrating solid knowledge of the
>marketplace and respect for one's work that goes just a tad beyond the
>desire to pick up a few bucks for beer money.
Crap. Defending non-paying markets goes against the overall welfare of
poets as a class. And you can respect your own work AND want cash as
well, and you don't have to settle for less.
So, I don't suppose you pay for contributions to YOUR site, do you?
Robert Maughan
In article <350FDB...@pacbell.net>, Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net>
writes
You believe having cunt at all would send you into raptures, Mr Mingo
mostly because you have tunnel vision. I'm sure the lady has a cunt, to
which you refer. I'm equally certain she is a cunt. Your hasty defence
of her confirms me in that opinion.
You appear to believe that your pedestrian puns are what carry you one
step ahead of normal people. You delude yourself, it's always easier to
bring down a moving target that is limping.
Stay in misc.writing, Mr Mingo. Genteel tolerance keeps you safe and
warm.
Fuck with me, you repulsive excrescence, and I'll remove you like a
wart from RAP, without benefit of an aesthetic.
Write a poem, cunt, or keep misc.writing in your headers.
RJM.
Karl Czajkowski
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
hey Maughan, stop quoting these idiot boys... it circumvents my killfile.
karl
MUSCLING TENSES
Who's fault is it ?
Poets.
They've marginalised themselves. They don't write about what concerns ordinary people.
John Scalzi escribió:
excellent poetry reviews that DO pay their writers -- as I've said,
I've got a list of about 100 or so in my 1998 Writers' Guide (not
counting the dozens of other commercial magazines that buy poetry on
occasion). THOSE are the markets I'd hit first.
Perhaps if more poets aimed for these rather than contenting
themselves with the magazines that don't pay them fair value, you all
might finally get rid of the notion that you don't need to get paid
for your work.
------------
Andrew Kelly
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:08:55 GMT, jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply
(John Scalzi) wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:52:57 -0600, Ken Jenks <Mind...@tale.com>
>wrote:
>
>>That's odd. Our profits are steadily increasing. We've been in the black
>>for over a year now, and I'm now in the enviable position of trying to
>>decide what to do with all of the extra money -- reinvest in better
>>artwork or invest in advertising.
>
>Hell, Ken, use that money and start a poetry magazine. You can
>apparently get that stuff for damn near next to nothing.
oh quittit!
No, Ken, if you really do have a cash surplus, I'd suggest first
patting yourself (and your staff) on the back. Then you should
take a good and fair portion and bump your pay scale a bit with
it. It's your writers that are putting that money in your
pockets and it's not unthinkable to show them you appreciate it.
Apart from that, enjoy the fact that your hard work is paying off
and that you're having a success.
And (don't think Mind's Eye isn't on my list) rew
Andrew Kelly
<snip>
> RJM
What a lovely things to say. Hey, what say you take your lover
out of your pocket and we can count on its fingers how many new
friends you just made.
Oops.
All those fingers, and nothing to count.
Poor things. They look so bored. I've an idea. Why don't you
shove one of them into your nostril until it passes through your
sinuses, pierces your brain and you fall dead to the floor?
And (please?) rew
c. earl nelson
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Jivvy wrote:
> And to state that not being paid for poetry devalues the writing? What
> an absurd notion.
generally speaking and based wholly on personal opinion, paying for their
'writing' devalues poetry.
let us first qualify poetry. or not.
> Poets who know the small litmags do not base their
> decision to submit on what they get paid, they base their decision to
> submit on the quality of the magazine and how well it fits their own
> writing. And there are *many* (if not most) outstanding small litmags
> which pay only in copies.
reviews like oyster boy review and onthebus (although the latter may be
paying at this time) are some notables.
while OBR carries my work, i would gladly wait in line for a spot in
onthebus.
> Will I write someone's software manual for free?
would i suck someones cock for free? of course not. there is work, and then
there is poetry.
> Of course not, there's
> an excellent market for tech writers. But an excellent market for small
> litmags?
>
> How many do you subscribe to?
>
excellent point, claire. and this is the catchall - the cunts never seem to
understand, if no one subscribes there can be no cash as payment. ever.
essentially, it seems that many a pitiful 'writer' could care less regarding
the woes of the greater fish he rides. i tend to view editors/publishers as
equally creative persons. i am creating one piece of jigsaw, my poetry, the
editor is the fool working the whole of the puzzle and in many instances
just as possessed as i am about his 'art'.
granted. there are shitty reviews just as there are shitty writers and in
many cases the worst reviews are run by failed writer types. to each his
job. finding the niche be it janitor or print mogul... bah! that is the
difficult part.
heres a bit of revenge therapy -
olympia
-------------------------------
catching my breath
on mcneilleys stoop
a can of beer in one fist
cigarette in the left
careful of my step
minding the plywood
giving way to persistent
rain, traffic,
year after
year.
its april. its
april again, and florida
is behind me
and im glad.
michael tends shortribs
over a slow flame
while i consider
eighthundred envelopes
endless submissions
of poetry and fiction
nearly all of it shit
and im amazed that
most anyone
can teach university
nearly anyone
can lecture in tokyo
amsterdam
seoul
ann arbor
anywhere.
and anyone
at all, really,
can play god
drinking and
listening to mussorgsky
at dusk
cursing papercuts
and throwing handfuls
of cover letters
into a cardboard box
rejections piled
to a failing ceiling
cracked and
threatening
to collapse.
i prefer this to
writing, this
sudden godliness
ive acquired;
phd's
mfa's
busboys
and
grandmothers -
i fan their asses
one by one.
---
nelson
1997
idiot parade
.........................................
so youre a poet?
yes, thats what they say.
o, i write poetry too!
really? thats nice.
i rhyme really good,
ive read all of shakespeare
wordsworth cummings pound
you name it - i think im good,
would you like to hear some?
no. not really, if you dont mind.
oooo youre some kind of bastard!
i bet you think your shit doesnt stink, fella!
cocksucker motherfucker GI Joe!
ive seen your work - you dont know shit about poetry!
im a real poet! my shit scans well.
youre the best. now go away. please.
why i oughta...
yes?
asshole!
o, indeed.
---
nelson
1996
in conclusion, i would submit that mister scalzi's work is most likely
subpar and he finds game in attempting to bolster his ego with diatribes
against the pigs who refuse to pay him. i have pored over thousands of
submissions, been browbeaten black and blue by the academic and sophomoric
and found little i could deem worthy of payment, if there had been payment
to offer in the first place. ive sat laughing til blue in the face as an
italian immigrant demands i place his work and at a fair rate of
compensation as he has been "awarded a most esteemed honor award from very
high rate poetry library national of the united states" including xeroxed
awards and notices of impending fame, certification, etc, ad nauseam.
it is bad enough that the academic puppy mills churn out countless mark
strands and maya angelous to satisfy the new yorker, but at the small press
level it only gets worse. the noise to signal ratio increases exponentially
as the floodgates fly wide and every swinging dick with a typer or a pen
becomes poet par excellance.
and granted, there are many great writers working the small presses: those
submissions abovementioned also included work by one of this countrys most
prolific poetesses as well as other well known small press figures, all of
them plugging away, all of them with ample reputation and ability... all of
them happy to be in print with such and such publication. building
reputations, bodies of work.
but the squelch of such misguided cads as this john s. figure is unnerving,
at times infuriating. i would rather they find some other hobby than
selfagrandising starmaking. certainly, the role of publisher would become
less stressful and time consuming if the submissions box was not full to the
fucking gills with the puke these types send in day after day, followed by
the neverending stream of queries begging immediate attention to their poems
as though theirs were the only to arrive at the office.
"dear editor: two weeks ago i sent you four hundred fifty poems scrawled in
nervous pencil on brown sackpaper. although i realise your submissions
guidelines stated positively no nervously penciled poetry on brown
sackpaper, i thought to myself that you couldnt possibly be referring to me
- after all, i am the great suffering poet and what good would it do me to
send you nicely typed, legible work? any how, i was wondering if you have
perhaps forgotten me or maybe that my parcel was lost in the mail as it has
been two fucking weeks since i sent you my poetry and i havent heard
anything about them since i mailed them 14 days past. look, just send them
back if you dont want them, but could you please apply notes to each and
every before returning my handsome manuscript? and not a poem missing - all
five pounds of them i need back if you use none. inclosed you will find two
32 cent stamps for return postage. the rest you can pay for wasting my
time."
the asshole has spoken.
c. earl nelson
southern by clerical error
John Scalzi
>in conclusion, i would submit that mister scalzi's work is most likely
>subpar and he finds game in attempting to bolster his ego with diatribes
>against the pigs who refuse to pay him.
Actually, my work is quite good and I get paid very well for it, on a
frequent basis. Please feel free to peruse some of my writing at my
web site, www.scalzi.com. The majority of the written material there
has been previously published (and paid for). I'm making enough off of
my writing to buy a house this year.
How on earth can I make so much money off of my writing? Well, for
one, by not supporting markets that refuse to pay contributors.
I note also that I am not railing against the pigs who refuse to pay
*me*, as I don't allow my work to fall into the hands of such
riff-raff. I am railing against the pigs who refuse to pay *you.*
Would that you would bother to do the same.
Robert Maughan
Karl Czajkowski <kar...@usul.CS.Berkeley.EDU> writes
>hey Maughan, stop quoting these idiot boys... it circumvents my killfile.
Apologies.
RJM.
Jivvy
>>>i tend to view editors/publishers as equally creative persons. i am creating one piece of jigsaw, my poetry, the editor is the fool working the whole of the puzzle and in many instances just as possessed as i am about his 'art'<<<
What could I possibly add? Well said.
Jack Mingo
Dick Harper wrote:
>
> In a thread some time ago, I suggested that literary magazines
> might see a real resurgence via electronic publishing, simply
> because the costs are so (relatively) low and the (potential)
> audience so large. Comments?
However, more likely, they'll get lost in the clutter since the
competition for attention on the net is so cacaphonious and high.
Jack (If the cacaphone rings, don't answer) Mingo
Suzanne Fortin
On 17 Mar 1998, Marek Lugowski wrote:
>
> We are the homey grubs living in the anerobic hostile noise and gasy cold
> shadow of multinational commerce and AOL links from pop music albums.
Marek,
I love this image.
Suzanne Fortin Quebec City, Canada EMAIL: sfo...@bigfoot.com
****************************************************************************
MINERVA'S CATHOLIC MESSAGE BOARD:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7724/b.htm
CATHOLIC INTERFAITH DISCUSSION SITE:
Dick Harper
Jen eloquently commented in misc.writing
> I think it's also important to remember that Web-based endeavours,
> whether writing-related or not, are seeing a drastic decline in viable
> ways of generating revenue.
>
> Content, the only thing on the Web worth money, must be offered to the
> customer (reader/client/whatever) for free.
>
> Advertising banner ads are seeing a huge drop in click-through rates.
>
> I believe we're in a lull between the first wave of making money on the
> Web (banner ads) and the big wave of making money on the Web
> (content-generated revenue).
That's an interesting point and a good one. Traditional print
magazines rely (primarily) on advertising revenue to pay the
office staff, the printer, the paper supplier, the ink supplier,
and the postman. Oh yeah. And the writers. Can a zine with no
traditional production costs pay the office staff and the writers
on subscriber revenue alone?
In a thread some time ago, I suggested that literary magazines
might see a real resurgence via electronic publishing, simply
because the costs are so (relatively) low and the (potential)
audience so large. Comments?
--Dick
Marek Lugowski
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980319...@hermes.ulaval.ca>,
Suzanne Fortin <aaa...@hermes.ulaval.ca> wrote:
>
>On 17 Mar 1998, Marek Lugowski wrote:
>
>>
>> We are the homey grubs living in the anerobic hostile noise and gasy cold
>> shadow of multinational commerce and AOL links from pop music albums.
>
>
>Marek,
>
>I love this image.
I love your loving of it. Like a cherished receipt from BC Ferries to
an exotic Pacific Coast fjord, taped to the windowsill at work.
Such lovings say to me: "click. click. hey... she's just like you."
-- Marek
--
-> ASGP/Agnieszka's Dowry (501c3): Free noMike noSignupSheet poetryNights
at Hoang Mai Restaurant, 5020 N Sheridan, Chicago, USA, North of Argyle,
Argyle Stop on Red Line Elevated Train, then West to Sheridan and Left
and storefront restaurant with red neon sign + my poster. Tue-Thu 7to9
Marek Lugowski
In article <3510CF...@pacbell.net>,
Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Dick Harper wrote:
>>
>> In a thread some time ago, I suggested that literary magazines
>> might see a real resurgence via electronic publishing, simply
>> because the costs are so (relatively) low and the (potential)
>> audience so large. Comments?
>
>
>However, more likely, they'll get lost in the clutter since the
>competition for attention on the net is so cacaphonious and high.
The attention-space on the web is high-dimensioned and the avenues for
promotion -- nonlinear. All this is exploitable by clever strategies.
Ours, below, is one such strategy. Xerox Research liked it. :)
"May" is the operative word. No magazine is likely to succeed without
exceding in competence in matters web and in hands-on HTML/Java/PDF
programming. One magazine makes a silly creche out of not being run
by technocrats (whatever that means) but by real writers & poets.
Aside from the vacuous pretention of this stance, I hold it up as
a sure indicator of an endangered species...
Our own Agnieszka's Dowry (AgD) ISSN 1088-4300 and A Small Garlic Press
(our 2/2.5-yearold babies) just happen to be staffed by geeks++. :)
Calmly put, 3 of us program/analyze/develop state-of-the-art systems
for a living. The evidence of our team competence permeates our
web pages and book design. We live in widely disparate cities, and
make this circumstance work for us, mostly, net.spasms permitting.
As to the evidence of our literary and editorial stewardship, you decide
at your leisure.
-- Marek
-=- ASGP -=- A Small Garlic Press -=-
http://www.enteract.com/~asgp/chapbook.html
-=- ASGP Catalog of Chapbooks -=-
http://www.enteract.com/~asgp/catalog.html
-=- Agnieszka's Dowry (AgD) ISSN 1088-4300 -=-
http://www.enteract.com/~asgp/agnieszka.html
--
magical mystery tour summer 1997 <--> http://www.enteract.com/~marek/
a clickable geographical map in 12 areas+loop 2 mar: postcards: kristie's!
--same url--> HalinaFAQ (Halina Pos/wiatowska Translation Project) <-------
James Meirose
This kind of stupid argument makes me think that a lot of
people have WAY too much time on their hands.
Jmonkey
Alan Pollock
Distribution:
James Meirose (jmei...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:This kind of stupid argument makes me think that a lot of
:people have WAY too much time on their hands.
:
:Jmonkey
How would you define 'too much time'?
I consider those with loads of free time to be the lucky ones - they get to do
(and write) what they want to, even if it's often bunk in the minds of some.
Beware the work ethic: 'work' is defined in many ways. Nex
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ah, if in this world there were no such thing as cherry blossoms,
perhaps then in spring time our hearts would be at peace."
Ariwara no Narihira
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.poems: 18-Mar-98 Re: Thoughts on an
E-zine p.. by Jack Mi...@pacbell.net
> Let's take a look at the imagery and use of language in this work by the
> justifiably obscure Bobbo Maughan.
Ah. How interesting. A look at the imagery of the "justifiably obscure
Bobbo Maughan" by the terribly *famous* jack mingo!--or should i write
"infamous"?--the *infamous* jack mingo, known all across the caberets of
the visigrod and the slave markets of the maghreb for his bumping and
grinding and heaving wearing nought but a sequined g-string, opera
gloves, pasties and thigh-high leather boots. Oh, his elaborate
truss-work, cottage cheese thighs, sagging butt and back-hair may put
one off a bit, but when jack begins his trademark pelvic gyrations one
forgets such things.
> First of all, ignore the sexual violence. Obviously, this is not a happy
> man, sexually. Look at his attitude toward "cunts," check out his
But *madame jack* is a happy man sexually!--oh GOD yes!--why, after he
took on that whole platoon of Greek paratroopers armed with nought but a
feather duster and a lacy little novelty apron (which stood straight up)
he cooed and giggled and sighed lovingly for months. Quite a revolting
spectacle, actually, but what could one do?
> threats of violence against someone he thinks might be wanting to fuck
> with him. Notice that he assumes, perhaps rightly so, that anybody
Threats of voilence?--odd. i detected no such thing. Have years of
laxative abuse left mingo paranoid as well as prolapsed here or there?
> misguided enough to want to have sex with him is an excrescence. But
> this isn't the most significant part.
Robert calls jack an "excrescence," and jack responds arguing that
robert "assumes" that "anybody misguided enough to want to have sex with
[robert] is an excrescence." Fascinating!--*how* are we to interpret
*that*?--did robert mention he wanted to have sex with madame
mingo?--did mingo mention that he wanted to have sex with robert? Does
mingo feel spurned?--rejected?--neglected? Is *THAT* what *THIS* is all
about?
> Notice the self-loathing in something more important: his use of
On the other hand, notice madame jack's narcissistic glee: no one loves
and adores jack mingo like jack mingo.
> language. The contempt for the wordplay that is the coin of the realm in
> which he resides, followed by a--perhaps unconscious but admittedly
> exquisite--pun a few paragraphs later: "...without benefit of an
> aesthetic."
Robert could not have written "without benefit of an *emetic*," because
robert was commenting upon what jack mingo wrote. But i digress.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Jack Mingo
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes wrote:
>
> [His usual johnny one-note generic rejoinder]
Sorry, man, I don't watch reruns.
Jack (It used to be they didn't come on until June) Mingo
Jack Mingo
John Scalzi is one of those crossposters from rec.arts.poems.
Jack (Sorry, you'll have to swim upstream in the thread to understand
why this is here) Mingo
Towse
[cc:] Jack Mingo wrote:
Yes, indeed, Jack, Scalzi's original post that started this thread was
crossposted to r.a.poems, but Scalzi is one of ours.
The original post in this thread dealt with Scalzi's go-round with an
unnamed ezine, which I herewith identify as The Melic Review.
See "The Melic Review Seeks Submissions" 16Mar98 Jamie Wasserman
<jam...@erols.com>.
That post was xposted to r.a.poems and is, I am sure, why Scalzi xposted
his "Thoughts" to both spots, unwittingly dragging back some forgettable
r.a.p twits for a rehash of their moldy tricks.
Sorry to see it happen, Jack. They'll be gone in a bit.
The sky is blue. The sun is shining.
Both here and across the bay.
Sal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
please help fight spam -- http://www.cauce.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Scalzi
On 19 Mar 1998 10:15:16 -0800, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>Taking this into TV land, can anyone remember when the winter/summer
>season finally died to be completely replaced by the
>new-episode-when-we-get-around-to-it approach?
It was a couple of years ago. I first noticed it with the "Star Trek"
series -- I figured they would do it that way because they knew the
trekkers would tune in no matter what. But now everyone does it. It's
incredibly irritiating -- one of the reasons I don't make THAT much of
an effort to tune into the tube at the moment.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 19-Mar-98 Re: Thoughts on an
E-zine p.. by Jack Mi...@pacbell.net
> Sorry, man, I don't watch reruns.
No, you only star in them, night after miserable night, a buddy hackett
redux without the edge. Unfunny, unclever, uninteresting--everything an
author of non-fiction should be. i congratulate you. You've found your
niche, small one.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Jack Mingo
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> marty (who knows he's being trolled but doesn't feel like resisting.)
Actually, you're being severely teased in a way that I think was even
transparent to most of the people of rap. Unfortunately your sense humor
flickers on and off unpredictably, so certain posters trigger only a
"Ha, you bastard, I can prove that you're WRONG!" response from you.
This week I seem to be on that list.
Jack (again? still?) Mingo
John Scalzi
On 19 Mar 1998 10:30:49 -0800, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>John Scalzi, as far as can be told from DejaNews, even accounting for
>changes in email address, had never posted in rec.arts.poems before
>the crossposted troll of a few days ago that started this thread.
>
>Also, John Scalzi has posted a lot in misc.writing.
To clarify, since this has become something of an issue.
I read and post to misc.writing.
I read rec.arts.poems, though I don't post (until, as noted, very
recently).
If you were to ask me which newsgroups I'd consider my "home" groups,
they would be misc.writing and alt.society.generation-x. However, I do
read several other groups, rec.arts.poems being one of them.
John Scalzi
On 19 Mar 1998 20:47:03 -0800, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> >> In article <3511E2...@pacbell.net>,
> >> Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> proclaimed:
>As we say in a.r.k, Jack:
>
>YHBT. YL. I win!
>
>marty (BTW, EP for the old reverse troll-troll.)
You know, you two keep at this and I going to have to separate you two
and send you to opposite corners of m.w.
Don't MAKE me.
Robert Maughan
Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> writes
>You really
>should take Robert up on his suggestion and read Dubliners.
Marty Fouts endorsing a suggestion of MINE?
Things have reached a pretty pass when soldiers kiss.
I notice you let go my equally valid suggestion that Mr Mingo go fuck
himself. You must stop this dreadful politesse. Tell the fucker to get
on his bike and stay in misc.writing where people are kindly enough to
tolerate the slimy turd.
Of course he's welcome here, too.
I think I'll crosspost this, just for the crack, whaat?
RJM.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.poems: 20-Mar-98 Re: Thoughts on an
E-zine p.. by Robert Mau...@etymon.de
> >You really
> >should take Robert up on his suggestion and read Dubliners.
>
> Marty Fouts endorsing a suggestion of MINE?
It's a good suggestion. i adore Joyce's Dubliners. But Joyce virgins
should begin their joycean journies with _finnegan's wake_.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Robert Maughan
Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> writes
>Robert Maughan wrote:
>>
>I think I'll crosspost this, just for the crack, whaat?
>
Crack inna pavemen? Duh, no can't be dat. Crack inna hayd? Duhhuhh,
I done tink so. Duh, wunder what he means? I know I'll look in my big
dicshunery, uhuh. Woooah, a new meaning for the woid. Issa kina drugs
thing. Duhuh. Now where's my keyboard? Jack clever, Jack look inna big
dicshunery.
>Oh, man. We're out of crack today. Should've been here earlier. It was
>SOO good.
So, Mr Mingo, you do want some more. The crack is good in Cricklewood
and you'd never know it. Would you? But why should you? Why should the
thought of another vernacular even enter your thick fucking skull? You
really should read.
The point of it all is a clitoris, Mr Mingo, and you don't get it.
>
>How about some crank. Or smack?
>
Crank? Can you get crank? Surely not one of your famous plays on words,
Mr Mingo? You haven't yourself been jacking up, have you? I do hope not,
some of my best friends are dead.
>Jack (Or maybe forget the crank, I think you've had enough) Mingo
That would be 'enough crankING', Mr Mingo, if you really were a wind-up
merchant, but you're a wanker with the wind up, and I'm here to blow you
away.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes of -
>> >You really
>> >should take Robert up on his suggestion and read Dubliners.
>>
>> Marty Fouts endorsing a suggestion of MINE?
>
>It's a good suggestion. i adore Joyce's Dubliners. But Joyce virgins
>should begin their joycean journies with _finnegan's wake_.
Quite agreem. Bussave a sec. Walk a dumb Min go roundward this newsog
a roup to do? You skull see the resulte of my hunfree and ours, where
weeb wide worlde to wail this peewee o'er electric of the pooter. No,
no, no Gil, no . List my words flick as snowflakes. Morthering rue.
And what's more, the man's a wanker.
RJM.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.misc.writing: 21-Mar-98 Re: Thoughts on an E-zine
p.. by Robert Mau...@etymon.de
> Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes of -
Point taken. Dubliners would better serve the joyce-novitiate. (Note to
self: never provoke a joycean scholar.)
> And what's more, the man's a wanker.
As we say in the colonies, robert, however inelegantly: well _DUH_!!!
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Phil
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, John Scalzi wrote:
> There are hundreds of paying markets for fiction and poetry. Why NOT
> try them first? Aim high, and work your way down the pay scale. Then
> if you still feel the need to have the work "published" and you don't
> want to bother with setting up your own web site (which can be a 10
> minute process, if you don't get worked up over graphics), fork it
> over to an "e-zine." They should be your "publishers" of VERY last
> resort. Doing any less is selling yourself short.
>
>
> ------------
> John Scalzi, Freelance Troublemaker
> http://www.scalzi.com
Where are these paying markets for poetry?
Where can I get their addresses/guidlines?
(I've seen a load of paying markets for fiction, but very, very few for
poetry).
Cheers
Phil
The Chocolate Lady
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:08:55 GMT during the misc.writing Community
News Flash, jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply (John Scalzi) reported:
>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:52:57 -0600, Ken Jenks <Mind...@tale.com>
>wrote:
>
>>That's odd. Our profits are steadily increasing. We've been in the black
>>for over a year now, and I'm now in the enviable position of trying to
>>decide what to do with all of the extra money -- reinvest in better
>>artwork or invest in advertising.
>
>Hell, Ken, use that money and start a poetry magazine. You can
>apparently get that stuff for damn near next to nothing.
>
Sounds like a good idea, actually.
Using the way that Minds Eye works, it could be done in a similar
fashion - give the non-paying public one poem, and to get more from
the same author, you have to pay.
Hell, I have close to 100 poems I would consider submitting if that
was the case.
The Chocolate Lady
Davida Chazan
~*~*~*~*~*~
De chocolatei non est disputandum! Ergo, carpe chocolatum!
~*~*~*~*~*~
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
Word Museum
What does everyone think about E-publishers of novels? They seem to be
getting a better name for quality than what they've had in the past.
Lori
--
Lori Soard
Word Museum, "Unlock the Magic"
A site for readers and writers of many genres!
http://www.wordmuseum.com
Ken Jenks
jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply (John Scalzi) suggested:
> >Hell, Ken, use that money and start a poetry magazine. You can
> >apparently get that stuff for damn near next to nothing.
And there's a good reason for that -- most of it is really, really bad.
The profit margin just isn't present for poetry. It takes too much time
to weed out the bad stuff, and readers won't pay enough for the good
stuff to make it worth the editor's time overall.
-- Ken Jenks, Editor-in-chief, Mind's Eye Fiction
http://tale.com/ Short stories on-line
Mind...@tale.com
PalmPilot users: Stories now available in AportisDoc format!
Victoria Strauss
Word Museum wrote:
> What does everyone think about E-publishers of novels? They seem to be
> getting a better name for quality than what they've had in the past.
>
> Lori
For info and links related to e-publishers (and my opinion of them), visit
the bottom URL below and select "Electronic Issues."
-Victoria
--
Author of THE ARM OF THE STONE
http://www.sff.net/people/victoriastrauss
http://www.sfwa.org/Beware/Warnings.html
Ken Jenks
Unfortunately, there's a lot of schlock out there in e-publishing land.
The novels which are currently published on-line are often second-rate
novels by unknown authors -- novels which could not be sold through
traditional book publishers. This lends a bad reputation to those of us
trying to do a better job. A few companies are succeeding in the battle
against mediocrity.
Look for good editing. Follow the money. That's where you'll find the
good fiction.
Good ideas are a dime a dozen -- but how do you collect the dime? It's
very hard to sell information, especially on the Internet. The buyer
must beware -- Is the transaction safe? Am I endangering my credit card?
Will the information be worth the price? Can my computer understand the
information? When will I get the information? The seller must also
beware -- Will the information be copied illegally? Will people pay for
my thoughts? How will I be paid? When? What are the sales tax issues in
my country, state and city?
The answers to these hard questions require hard work, research,
investment and trust. To accommodate both buyers and sellers, an
information transaction must be safe, legal, easy, fast and refundable.
And the costs of the overall system and of each transaction must be low
enough to encourage commerce.
It's hard to make a transaction safe on the Internet. Transaction safety
means only authorized people can perform a transaction or view the
record of the transaction, plus a guarantee that the transaction won't
get lost. Authorization is usually handled with passwords or encryption
or both. Since strong encryption is not yet available world-wide,
passwords are a must. Since unencrypted passwords might be intercepted,
independent confirmation of transactions and an easy refund system can
add another layer of safety. Sending credit cards numbers across the
Internet is probably as safe as using your card in a restaurant or over
the phone, but consumer fears of unknown insecurities have limited the
use of credit cards on the Internet. Encryption technology can address
this question of confidence, but only a change in mindset can convince
people that it's safe to use credit cards on the 'Net.
Safe transactions have another aspect: piracy. How can the seller be
certain that his copyright isn't being violated? He can't. Modern
technology makes duplication so easy that copyright piracy is as trivial
as hitting "PRINT SCRN" or taking a book to a photocopier. Laws and
international treaties are the slow, cumbersome weapons in the war
against copyright piracy. Publishing information on the Internet may
make it more vulnerable to easy copying, but by the same token, Internet
search tools can help detect, trace and prosecute this kind of piracy.
The same technology that makes copying easy also makes it easy to detect
illegal copies. That isn't true of printed works and photocopiers.
Making each transaction legal requires research. What laws apply to the
purchase? What taxes must be paid? Is the buyer legally allowed to
purchase that particular information? Does the seller have the rights to
sell it? The seller who hasn't done this research may be liable for
civil suits or even criminal prosecution. (They buyer usually isn't as
much at risk, legally.)
If a transaction isn't easy, buyers won't do it. Transactions must be as
simple as possible to prevent confusion and to encourage more buyers to
participate in the process. Many of the existing financial transaction
systems on the Web require downloading and installing software on your
PC or (when the software is available) your Macintosh. This hurdle isn't
trivial for many users who just want to "surf the Web." The current
flock of financial transaction systems don't offer free demonstrations,
so potential users must throw some caution to the winds when using them.
Internet technology can make a transaction fast, but will it be fast
enough? If you ordered a book by mail order, you'd be overjoyed if it
arrived within an hour of sending your check. If you received a story or
image or program via e-mail, a wait of an hour might seem intolerable.
However, the seller might require that time to perform credit card or
account validation. Again, this problem can be solved with technology
and pre-authorized accounts, but many people won't take the time to
apply for an account with the existing on-line transaction systems, even
when low cost and safety are assured.
On-line transaction systems must be inexpensive enough to purchase, set
up and use that they don't kill the commerce they're intended to enable.
Most of the current systems cost hundreds to set up, require expert
computer knowledge and gobble up large percentages of the purchase price
in transaction fees, especially for small transactions.
If you do submit a story, I'm very likely to reject it. That's what
keeps our quality high -- very picky editing, and choosing a few really
good stories from the hundreds submitted every month. But what stories
do readers really want to read? The best-written stories? Or those that
match the reader's interests? In what format? How easy can we make it to
buy stories?
At Mind's Eye Fiction, we're grappling with these and other tough
questions. I hope we've found some solutions that will work for you, the
buyers and sellers of stories.