Wash. Post-- Publishing schemes
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>He estimates that more than 10,000 gullible writers fork over more than
>$50 million a year to dishonest literary agents. It's one of the dark,
>ugly secrets of the American publishing industry.
Except they aren't any part of the American publishing industry.
They're parasites on it.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 7/24/99
John VanSickle
to enlighten the fool.
Brenda
John VanSickle wrote:
> A fool and his money are soon parted. The only way to prevent this is
> to enlighten the fool.
And even this is not guaranteed of success. There are those who have
ears, but will not hear.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
V-X
Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:24:35 GMT, news...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>He estimates that more than 10,000 gullible writers fork over more than
>>$50 million a year to dishonest literary agents. It's one of the dark,
>>ugly secrets of the American publishing industry.
>
>Except they aren't any part of the American publishing industry.
>They're parasites on it.
Wouldn't that kinda be like a flea sucking on a lamprey?
--Robert
There's a universal ring to what you say. Or is it Warner Brothers?
www.ungh.com
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:07:11 -0400, in rec.arts.sf.composition, Lawrence
>Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:24:35 GMT, news...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>>He estimates that more than 10,000 gullible writers fork over more than
>>>$50 million a year to dishonest literary agents. It's one of the dark,
>>>ugly secrets of the American publishing industry.
>>
>>Except they aren't any part of the American publishing industry.
>>They're parasites on it.
>
>Wouldn't that kinda be like a flea sucking on a lamprey?
No.
And if you think comparing the publishing industry to a lamprey is
either accurate or clever, I don't see much of a future for your own
writing career.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 10/1/99
DRAGON WEATHER is now available -- ISBN 0-312-86978-9
V-X
Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>No.
>
>And if you think comparing the publishing industry to a lamprey is
>either accurate or clever, I don't see much of a future for your own
>writing career.
Okee-dokee, Nostradamus.
V-X
Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>Wouldn't that kinda be like a flea sucking on a lamprey?
>
>No.
>
>And if you think comparing the publishing industry to a lamprey is
>either accurate or clever, I don't see much of a future for your own
>writing career.
BTW, I won't ask you how much you're getting per copy of the book you just got
published, because one, it would be rude and you wouldn't answer, but I have a
general enough idea to guess. You do realize that printing, distribution and
marketing, the two primary services a publisher provides for you, are not really
eating up the rest of the cover price, not even close, don't you?
I will, however, leave the following words in my defense: "No simultaneous
submissions." This is one of the bigger loads of crap I've ever run into in my
life, and the only thing it does is take some work off the backs of publishers
and turn it into bigger work and pain that sits on yours, the person who can
least afford to deal with it. Why the hell shouldn't you be able to send a story
to twenty magazines at once and get the best deal out of it? What are they,
priests or something, that you must serve one god, and one only, until it
decides what to do with you? What a joke...like it would kill publishers to
actually have to compete for authors before they "hit it big." (And don't even
tell me about how hard it would be for magazines to publish if they had to deal
with real "free agent" writers. Yeah, it would be a little more work. It doesn't
even begin to compare, though, with sitting around waiting for months to hear
that they didn't like the story, though, so you can finally send it to somebody
else who might.)
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <9xmM3.3461$N64....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, LWE wrote:
>V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>>LWE wrote:
>>>news...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>He estimates that more than 10,000 gullible writers fork over
>>>> more than $50 million a year to dishonest literary agents. It's
>>>> one of the dark, ugly secrets of the American publishing industry.
>>>
>>>Except they aren't any part of the American publishing industry.
>>>They're parasites on it.
>>
>>Wouldn't that kinda be like a flea sucking on a lamprey?
>
>No.
>
>And if you think comparing the publishing industry to a lamprey is
>either accurate or clever, I don't see much of a future for your own
>writing career.
Well, it was a *little* clever, but for the record, the flea would
drown. I agree with you that this is not an accurate portrayal, but
it is understandable how he came about it. Most witers I am a fan
of do not live a lavish lifestyle, many in fact do not make much
money at all, and many work "day jobs," but I don't really need to
tell you this. So the writer doesn't get the money, so....
To the bookseller, I worked for Borders for 4 years, and after four
years of being told that Borders wasn't making enough money to
pay me better (I could have gotten a $2 raise by changing to fast
food and a $4 raise by changing to a grocery bagger) I left. So, the
bookseller doesn't get the money, and if one can believe a corporation,
neither did they. So, who does that leave?
Editors, reps, and the publishers. Someone has to be making the
money, right?
Actually, IMHO, no one makes money with books.
christopher.....
My problem with the original quote of, "10,000 gullible writers fork over more
than $50 million a year [...]" is that tis would be some
$5000 a person, and I guess I have little sympathy for someone that
dumb.
--
El articulo es demasiado grande para su apartado.
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <WmMCOBATFAGwuW...@4ax.com>, V-X wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:27:21 -0400 Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
>>>Wouldn't that kinda be like a flea sucking on a lamprey?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>And if you think comparing the publishing industry to a lamprey is
>>either accurate or clever, I don't see much of a future for your own
>>writing career.
>
>BTW, I won't ask you how much you're getting per copy of the
>book you just got published, because one, it would be rude and
>you wouldn't answer, but I have a general enough idea to guess.
Glad to see we're being polite. Hear that sound? That's the sound
of your address falling into a hundred killfiles.
>You do realize that printing, distribution and marketing, the two >primary
services a publisher provides for you, are not really
>eating up the rest of the cover price, not even close, don't you?
Umm, I count three services, not two, but your point's taken.
But it's naive opinion. Publishing is a lot like the music business
in that there are a lot of hidden costs. Someone's got to pay for
the superstars.
>I will, however, leave the following words in my defense: "No >simultaneous
submissions."
What a poor defense.
>This is one of the bigger loads of crap I've ever run into in my
>life, and the only thing it does is take some work off the backs of
>publishers and turn it into bigger work and pain that sits on yours,
>the person who can least afford to deal with it. Why the hell shouldn't
>you be able to send a story to twenty magazines at once and get the
>best deal out of it?
Leaving aside for now the likelyhood of twenty magazines all
being interested in the same story (let alone wanting to buy it),
and disregarding the fact that one would be hard pressed to even
find twenty paying SF markets, let's for a minute enter your land
of make-believe.
How long do you think these places have to decide and buy a story?
How many submissions do you think they have to select from? How
much money do you think they have to throw around?
And why would you want to do simsubs? For the extra $20 you're
going to get from this imaginary bidding war, you've got to add
in the time it took to deal with the twenty magazines and cost
of sending the same story out 20 times. Give me a break.
christopher....
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <8iACONgKIjqcXB...@4ax.com>, V-X wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:27:21 -0400, LWE wrote:
>>And if you think comparing the publishing industry to a lamprey is
>>either accurate or clever, I don't see much of a future for your own
>>writing career.
>Okee-dokee, Nostradamus.
All LWE is pointing out is that you have an unprofessional attitude,
and with such, stand little chance of publishing. It's really not that
difficult of a call.
Anncrispin
>more
>than $50 million a year [...]" is that tis would be some
>$5000 a person, and I guess I have little sympathy for someone that
>dumb.
Dear Lynn:
It's tempting to view it like that, but you must realize that the folks posting
on these newsgroups are powerhouses of knowledge and experience compared to the
average newbie writer.
I run into this every day, and it's NOT a matter of being stupid, believe me.
An appalling number of writing scam victims are college educated people --
matter of fact, lots of them are doctors and lawyers.
Just because people are ignorant and clueless, doesn't mean they deserve to get
ripped off. That's the same logic as saying that a woman who walks around in a
bad section of town at night wearing a miniskirt and spike heels deserves to
get accosted and/or assaulted.
Best,
-Ann C. Crispin
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Actually, IMHO, no one makes money with books.
Yup. That's right. Way too much overhead.
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <touM3.3666$N64....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, LWE wrote:
>lynn...@aol.com (Christopher Jorgensen) wrote:
>
>>Actually, IMHO, no one makes money with books.
>
>Yup. That's right. Way too much overhead.
Well, UPS makes _some_ money.
V-X
(Christopher Jorgensen) wrote:
>Actually, IMHO, no one makes money with books.
I dunno. Printers and publicists do pretty well, and something pays for them
skyscrapers and shit.
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <9yuM3.3669$N64....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, LWE wrote:
>If you want to improve things for writers, the best thing you can do
>is shoot a dozen of them and cut down on the surplus population.
A dozen? A dozen dozens and you still have yet to make a dent.
I prefer the trickle down theory myself. Go after the top hundred,
wait a year, see how things fall, then do it again. Repeat as necessary.
Course this only works until you hear, "Lawrence Watt-Evans, get
up against the wall!"
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>BTW, I won't ask you how much you're getting per copy of the book you just got
>published, because one, it would be rude and you wouldn't answer, but I have a
>general enough idea to guess.
It's not rude at all. It's common knowledge. Standard hardcover
royalty is 10%, so I get $2.70 for each copy.
>You do realize that printing, distribution and
>marketing, the two primary services a publisher provides for you, are not really
>eating up the rest of the cover price, not even close, don't you?
Of course they aren't; about half the money goes to the retailer.
Books are wholesale priced at 40% to 60% of cover.
Most of the rest goes for shipping, returns, etc. Publishers don't
get rich.
>I will, however, leave the following words in my defense: "No simultaneous
>submissions." This is one of the bigger loads of crap I've ever run into in my
>life, and the only thing it does is take some work off the backs of publishers
>and turn it into bigger work and pain that sits on yours, the person who can
>least afford to deal with it. Why the hell shouldn't you be able to send a story
>to twenty magazines at once and get the best deal out of it? What are they,
>priests or something, that you must serve one god, and one only, until it
>decides what to do with you? What a joke...like it would kill publishers to
>actually have to compete for authors before they "hit it big." (And don't even
>tell me about how hard it would be for magazines to publish if they had to deal
>with real "free agent" writers. Yeah, it would be a little more work. It doesn't
>even begin to compare, though, with sitting around waiting for months to hear
>that they didn't like the story, though, so you can finally send it to somebody
>else who might.)
Why should any editor or publisher want to make _your_ life easier?
You're complaining about how it sucks being you because the publishers
won't treat you nicely. Why _should_ they? What's in it for them?
There are so bloody many writers chasing after readers that editors
and publishers can do anything they damn well please, and if you don't
like it they don't care. This doesn't make them parasites. You're
free to self-publish, and see just how much that printing, marketing,
and distribution is actually worth.
In fact, now that we have online marketing, that's exactly what some
people are doing. Amazon will carry self-published books, you know --
check out the Amazon Advantage program.
Most of these folks aren't getting rich by cutting out the publishers.
Publishers offer a genuine service; if you don't like it, you don't
have to use it, but if you do want to use it, it'll be on their terms,
because there are 10,000 other people in line behind you -- the 10,000
suckers who make it possible for the _real_ parasites to stay in
business.
If you want to improve things for writers, the best thing you can do
is shoot a dozen of them and cut down on the surplus population.
V-X
(Christopher Jorgensen) wrote:
>Editors, reps, and the publishers. Someone has to be making the
>money, right?
BTW, ad agencies and web design agencies, two industries I'm more or less
familiar with, have similar issues--they charge insane rates for workers who see
maybe a tenth of that, and *everybody's* strapped, because the money all goes
into maintaining image. You know, a marble entry floor with the company logo on
it, a mahogany conference table the size of Antartica, a view of downtown from
the twentieth floor, flying clients all over the map whenever they get the itch,
or going to see them, the CEO's Mercedes, etc. *That's* where all the money
goes, and it's an endless hole.
--Robert (Has worked at one agency where it was fairly reliably rumoured that
the CEO's *house* payments were being covered by the company.)
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>In article <touM3.3666$N64....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, LWE wrote:
>
>>lynn...@aol.com (Christopher Jorgensen) wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, IMHO, no one makes money with books.
>>
>>Yup. That's right. Way too much overhead.
>
>Well, UPS makes _some_ money.
Okay, good point.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>In article <9yuM3.3669$N64....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, LWE wrote:
>
>>If you want to improve things for writers, the best thing you can do
>>is shoot a dozen of them and cut down on the surplus population.
>
>A dozen? A dozen dozens and you still have yet to make a dent.
>
>I prefer the trickle down theory myself. Go after the top hundred,
>wait a year, see how things fall, then do it again. Repeat as necessary.
>
>Course this only works until you hear, "Lawrence Watt-Evans, get
>up against the wall!"
Oh, but if you're trying to make the world safe for simultaneous
submissions, it's the unpublished writers you need to kill off.
They're the ones who write most of the slush.
V-X
(Christopher Jorgensen) wrote:
>
>In article <8iACONgKIjqcXB...@4ax.com>, V-X wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:27:21 -0400, LWE wrote:
>
>>>And if you think comparing the publishing industry to a lamprey is
>>>either accurate or clever, I don't see much of a future for your own
>>>writing career.
>
>>Okee-dokee, Nostradamus.
>
>All LWE is pointing out is that you have an unprofessional attitude
No, not really. I'm just used to working around big money industries with a
tendancy to cry poor all the time, and unduly burden their workforce.
--Robert
V-X
Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>Why should any editor or publisher want to make _your_ life easier?
I dunno. Because we provide what they sell, and they couldn't possibly live
without us? I just think the whole thing ought to be a little more symbiotic,
and not such a buttfuck, all-around, to the writer.
Why should I even have to think about publishers' logistical problems, to
counter your question? Have you ever even considered that, how much of a
freelance writer's life is spent worrying about how other people run their
businesses? Why? Other freelance work doesn't work that way, at least on that
kind of scale. I mean, it's always a very special pain in the ass, but it's
usually not accompanied by demands that you stand on one foot for six months,
and if it is, you can walk and find another client who won't do that.
FWIW, I never demanded anything from anybody. I said the way it works sucks, and
it does. These are, however, "the rules," and there are always stupid rules to
bow to or, rarely, get around, in any industry.
Spouting the party line about how hard it would be for magazines if they had to
scramble one-tenth as hard as the writers they can't exist without impresses me
about half as much as saying "Sending multiple submissions would be harder"
does. No, it wouldn't be. To suggest as much is absurd. The only people it makes
things easier for are publishers, who essentially have captive pens of writers
they can choose from at their leisure, because they're forbidden to go elsewhere
until the Golden Word trickles out.
And forgive the hyperbole on using "twenty magazines" as an example. How about
three? Wouldn't that be nice? If you could just send your manuscript to three
different mags, and they all knew there was a clock ticking, and somebody else
might get it?
That is how just about every other freelance market on the planet works, you
know.
V-X
<v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>And forgive the hyperbole on using "twenty magazines" as an example. How about
>three? Wouldn't that be nice? If you could just send your manuscript to three
>different mags, and they all knew there was a clock ticking, and somebody else
>might get it?
BTW, in case anybody can't do the math, this would lead to true, case-by-case,
rate competition and a hardcore bargaining chip on the side of authors who
haven't yet reached the lofty heights set by Danielle Steele, the real reason
for "No simultaneous submissions."
It may be "just life," but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
V-X
(Christopher Jorgensen) wrote:
>Glad to see we're being polite. Hear that sound? That's the sound
>of your address falling into a hundred killfiles.
I'm sorry. I must have missed it,
>Umm, I count three services, not two, but your point's taken.
>But it's naive opinion. Publishing is a lot like the music business
>in that there are a lot of hidden costs. Someone's got to pay for
>the superstars.
Why? And the music business is an even bigger scam...I really can't believe you
don't know that. Record companies aren't yet on my "never work for these
businesses again" list with, say, realtors and attorneys, but they're close.
V-X
<v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>my "never work for these
>businesses again" list with, say, realtors and attorneys
Oh, and insurance agencies. Can't forget them.
V-X
(Christopher Jorgensen) wrote:
>
>In article <vpYCOCT=zRBJBQehQX...@4ax.com>, V-X wrote:
>
>>Record companies aren't yet on my "never work for these
>>businesses again" list with, say, realtors and attorneys,
>>but they're close.
>
>Bet that's got 'em shakin'.
Would you mind not recasting everything I say? There wasn't any brag, there,
I've just never had particularly pleasant dealings with record companies, the
jobs I've done for them.
--Robert, try to imagine watching a video you worked on on MTV, seeing the video
used in ads for the record, and then waiting six months more to get the lousy
five hundred bucks the label still owes you, and see how nice you are about it.
V-X
(Christopher Jorgensen) wrote:
>By the way, anyone ever tell you that you have an annoying habit
>of following-up your own posts?
Yes.
--Robert
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <19991011192712...@ng-fy1.aol.com>, anncr...@aol.com
wrote:
>>My problem with the original quote of, "10,000 gullible writers fork
>>over more than $50 million a year [...]" is that this would be some
>>$5000 a person, and I guess I have little sympathy for someone that
>>dumb.
>
>Dear Lynn:
I prefer Christopher, but you can call me anything you like. :)
>It's tempting to view it like that, but you must realize that the folks
>posting on these newsgroups are powerhouses of knowledge and
>experience compared to the average newbie writer.
I guess I just wasn't clear enough. I was only making an observation
of math. The schemes I usually see are along the lines of, "For a
reading fee of..." or vanity press ads. The $5000 amount is astounding
to me, as it seems like a person would have to get taken several times.
>I run into this every day, and it's NOT a matter of being stupid, believe
>me. An appalling number of writing scam victims are college educated >people
-- matter of fact, lots of them are doctors and lawyers.
Ah, that explains it. People with money to burn in other words. If
it really took $5000 to get published I'd never dream of doing it.
>Just because people are ignorant and clueless, doesn't mean they
>deserve to get ripped off. That's the same logic as saying that a
>woman who walks around in a bad section of town at night wearing
>a miniskirt and spike heels deserves to get accosted and/or assaulted.
No, but she should be surprised when it happens.
IMHO, a bad analogy. As I am willing to concede that said woman
bears no culpability for hypothetical assault, and has a hypothetical
right to go where she will without being accosted, but she's still
being stupid and for such owes some responsibility for any event she
knowingly places herself in.
Using a weighted argument (the virgin alone at night with a bad of
gold) isn't being fair. I was beaten once, and I'm a strong, 6' 2",
male that has had both military and matrial arts training. And you
know what? I blame no one but myself.
I'm not trying to excuse illegal acts. I would just hope that someone
would do a little investigation before committing $5000.
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <vpYCOCT=zRBJBQehQX...@4ax.com>, V-X wrote:
>Record companies aren't yet on my "never work for these
>businesses again" list with, say, realtors and attorneys,
>but they're close.
Bet that's got 'em shakin'.
christopher....
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <19991011230732...@ngol01.aol.com>, lynn...@aol.com
wrote:
>In article <vpYCOCT=zRBJBQehQX...@4ax.com>, V-X wrote:
>
>>Record companies aren't yet on my "never work for these
>>businesses again" list with, say, realtors and attorneys,
>>but they're close.
>
>Bet that's got 'em shakin'.
By the way, anyone ever tell you that you have an annoying habit
of following-up your own posts?
christopher....
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:46:21 -0700, in rec.arts.sf.composition, V-X
><v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>
>>And forgive the hyperbole on using "twenty magazines" as an example. How about
>>three? Wouldn't that be nice? If you could just send your manuscript to three
>>different mags, and they all knew there was a clock ticking, and somebody else
>>might get it?
>
>BTW, in case anybody can't do the math, this would lead to true, case-by-case,
>rate competition and a hardcore bargaining chip on the side of authors who
>haven't yet reached the lofty heights set by Danielle Steele, the real reason
>for "No simultaneous submissions."
Oh, bullshit. What it would result in is hundreds or thousands of
manuscripts being returned unread. It would result in magazines
taking the same route AMAZING has and announcing they won't accept
submissions from unpublished writers. It would result in all
anthologies going invitation-only, and probably a lot of markets going
to commissioned stories only.
THEY DON'T NEED YOU.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:34:31 -0400, in rec.arts.sf.composition, Lawrence
>Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>>Why should any editor or publisher want to make _your_ life easier?
>
>I dunno. Because we provide what they sell, and they couldn't possibly live
>without us?
But they could. They don't need you. There are thousands more just
like you, begging for an opportunity.
> Have you ever even considered that, how much of a
>freelance writer's life is spent worrying about how other people run their
>businesses?
Since I make my living as a freelance writer, yes, of course I have.
Do you really think you're saying anything new?
>Spouting the party line about how hard it would be for magazines if they had to
>scramble one-tenth as hard as the writers they can't exist without impresses me
>about half as much as saying "Sending multiple submissions would be harder"
>does.
I'm not spouting any party line about how hard it would be for
magazines to do anything; I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter what
you want, only what _they_ want. They're the customer, and the
customer is always right.
>And forgive the hyperbole on using "twenty magazines" as an example. How about
>three? Wouldn't that be nice? If you could just send your manuscript to three
>different mags, and they all knew there was a clock ticking, and somebody else
>might get it?
>
>That is how just about every other freelance market on the planet works, you
>know.
Yeah, and there's no other freelance market with such a huge surplus
of suppliers.
jon courtenay grimwood
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:54:54 -0700, V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:46:21 -0700, in rec.arts.sf.composition, V-X
>><v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>>
about
>>>three? Wouldn't that be nice? If you could just send your manuscript to
three
>>>different mags, and they all knew there was a clock ticking, and somebody
else
>>>might get it?
>>
case-by-case,
>>rate competition and a hardcore bargaining chip on the side of authors who
>>haven't yet reached the lofty heights set by Danielle Steele, the real
reason
>>for "No simultaneous submissions."
>
>Oh, bullshit. What it would result in is hundreds or thousands of
>manuscripts being returned unread. It would result in magazines
>taking the same route AMAZING has and announcing they won't accept
>submissions from unpublished writers. It would result in all
>anthologies going invitation-only, and probably a lot of markets going
>to commissioned stories only.
>
>THEY DON'T NEED YOU.
Too right<g>
Or as one editor said when told by an unpublished would-be author that he
'had other irons in the fire'...
'Remove irons and replace with typescript.'
More often than not publishers actually loose money on the first one or two
books and regard breaking even as good. Apart from the hype specials, when
did you last hear of an author earning out the advance on his/her first
book? (At least before over-all sales picked up when the third or fourth
book started getting noticed...)
jon
--
jon courtenay grimwood
'rapidly turning into a novelist worth watching.' (Locus)
http://www.hardcopy.demon.co.uk
Tippi
V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
> It may be "just life," but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
So what are you going to do about it?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
James Nicoll
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>If you want to improve things for writers, the best thing you can do
>is shoot a dozen of them and cut down on the surplus population.
>
Or increase the number of people in the market, hence SETI.
James Nicoll
--
"You know, it's getting more and more like _Blade Runner_ down
here."
A customer commenting on downtown Kitchener
V-X
<tipp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <uZMCOPRd112C8m...@4ax.com>,
> V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>
>> It may be "just life," but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
>
>So what are you going to do about it?
I dunno. What are you going to do about it? I mean, it's not like I offered or
anything.
V-X
grimwood" <j...@hardcopy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>More often than not publishers actually loose money on the first one or two
>books and regard breaking even as good. Apart from the hype specials, when
>did you last hear of an author earning out the advance on his/her first
>book? (At least before over-all sales picked up when the third or fourth
>book started getting noticed...)
You know, I suppose I should act appreciative about having the "Publishing 101
Lectures For Newbies Who Just Announced That They're Going To Set The World On
Fire And Make a Million Bucks" pulled out every time I post...something
completely other...but I won't.
Okay. Publishers don't need writers. You win. There couldn't possibly be an
element of "not recognizing your own cage," here, because the idea of publishers
without writers just makes so much damned sense.
V-X
grimwood" <j...@hardcopy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Oh, bullshit. What it would result in is hundreds or thousands of
>>manuscripts being returned unread.
You...do realize that they don't really finish the sucky ones, or even start
them a lot of the time, don't you? Even if they say they did? I mean, really, do
you have time to read alt.sex.stories every day, all day?
So...tell me again what the big difference would be.
And now I'm sure I'll hear from an assistant editor who really, really, really,
REALLY does read EVERY SINGLE WORD.
jon courtenay grimwood
V-X wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:39:54 +0100, in rec.arts.sf.composition, "jon
courtenay
>grimwood" <j...@hardcopy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
two
>>books and regard breaking even as good. Apart from the hype specials,
when
>>did you last hear of an author earning out the advance on his/her first
>>book? (At least before over-all sales picked up when the third or fourth
>>book started getting noticed...)
<snip Publishing 101>
>Okay. Publishers don't need writers. You win.
Oh, they need writers okay. Good writers, new writers, fresh writers...
Unfortunately most of the stuff hitting the slush piles doesn't fit that
bill.
It's the old thing, everyone's got a novel in them - and that's exactly
where it should stay in about 90% of the cases.
(Yeah, I started out many years ago having to read slush so I'm probably
heavily biased. But as for - shock, horror - editors or their assistants
not reading the whole script, I know one editor who reads only the first
line... And at least he reads that, rather than just judging the script on
the covering letter...)
yours from a gilded cage
jon
Dorothy J Heydt
>
>And now I'm sure I'll hear from an assistant editor who really, really, really,
>REALLY does read EVERY SINGLE WORD.
Well, Marion Zimmer Bradley really did read every single word of
every single MS. But she's dead (not as a result of reading the
slush), and I dunno if her staff are going to be quite so
punctilious. Mostly, reading the first page or two (in extreme
cases, the first line) of a MS. is enough to give a reliable
clue.
Though Marion did perform one act of triage (or had her staff do
it): anything badly typed or printed got returned unread.
Anything single-spaced, or in faint ink, or in funny fonts, or in
funny colors. Her justification is that her vision was bad as a
result of her diabetes and strokes. But in fact no editor will
read an MS. printed like that.
There's always an exception, and I got reminded about it the
other day. There was one fantasy writer who, as late as the
early 1950s, was still submitting his MSS. to his publishers
hand-written with a quill pen.
But he was Lord Dunsany, and we aren't.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>In article <9yuM3.3669$N64....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>
>>If you want to improve things for writers, the best thing you can do
>>is shoot a dozen of them and cut down on the surplus population.
>
> Or increase the number of people in the market, hence SETI.
Hey, good thought!
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>Okay. Publishers don't need writers. You win. There couldn't possibly be an
>element of "not recognizing your own cage," here, because the idea of publishers
>without writers just makes so much damned sense.
Um... you know, writers don't need publishers. As I pointed out
earlier. If you don't like publishers, then screw 'em --
self-publish. The Web is just waiting for you. Every town has a
printer, and most of them work cheap.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:39:54 +0100, in rec.arts.sf.composition, "jon courtenay
>grimwood" <j...@hardcopy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Oh, bullshit. What it would result in is hundreds or thousands of
>>>manuscripts being returned unread.
>
>You...do realize that they don't really finish the sucky ones, or even start
>them a lot of the time, don't you? Even if they say they did?
Oh, they almost always start 'em, but of course they don't finish
them. Why should they?
>So...tell me again what the big difference would be.
First readers would go from looking at the first paragraph of each
story to simply refusing delivery of manuscript-sized envelopes.
>And now I'm sure I'll hear from an assistant editor who really, really, really,
>REALLY does read EVERY SINGLE WORD.
Gods, I hope not. What a loser that would be.
James Nicoll
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>On 12 Oct 1999 15:33:53 GMT, jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <9yuM3.3669$N64....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>If you want to improve things for writers, the best thing you can do
>>>is shoot a dozen of them and cut down on the surplus population.
>>
>> Or increase the number of people in the market, hence SETI.
>
>Hey, good thought!
Clifford Simak's idea, actually. Earth makes contact and all the
ETs want is our pulp fiction.
Brenda
V-X wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:39:54 +0100, in rec.arts.sf.composition, "jon courtenay
> grimwood" <j...@hardcopy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>Oh, bullshit. What it would result in is hundreds or thousands of
> >>manuscripts being returned unread.
>
> You...do realize that they don't really finish the sucky ones, or even start
> them a lot of the time, don't you? Even if they say they did? I mean, really, do
> you have time to read alt.sex.stories every day, all day?
>
> So...tell me again what the big difference would be.
>
> And now I'm sure I'll hear from an assistant editor who really, really, really,
> REALLY does read EVERY SINGLE WORD.
If there are any, they won't be here -- they'll be too busy reading slush. You do
not in fact have to read every single word of a ms to know that it is unsuited to
your needs. The first sentence (as someone uptopic mentioned) is perhaps a little
stringent, but I'd say the first page is all you really need to read.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Jay Random
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:05:15 -0700, V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>
> >Okay. Publishers don't need writers. You win. There couldn't possibly be an
> >element of "not recognizing your own cage," here, because the idea of publishers
> >without writers just makes so much damned sense.
>
> Um... you know, writers don't need publishers. As I pointed out
> earlier. If you don't like publishers, then screw 'em --
> self-publish. The Web is just waiting for you. Every town has a
> printer, and most of them work cheap.
Which doesn't answer V-X's valid (if obnoxiously presented) point: If
publishers _don't_ need writers, just what the hell _do_ they need?
Rachael Lininger
James Nicoll <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <9yuM3.3669$N64....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>
>>If you want to improve things for writers, the best thing you can do
>>is shoot a dozen of them and cut down on the surplus population.
>
> Or increase the number of people in the market, hence SETI.
This is why all writers should run Seti@home on their computers (assuming
they us an OS that will run it).
Rachael
--
Rachael Lininger | "A sentence without syntax
lininger@ | is like an egg without salt."
chem.wisc.edu | --Noel Langley
Samuel Kleiner
>
>>In article <9yuM3.3669$N64....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>If you want to improve things for writers, the best thing you can do
>>>is shoot a dozen of them and cut down on the surplus population.
>>
>> Or increase the number of people in the market, hence SETI.
>
>
AI also has the potential for creating new markets.
I am certain that the AIen will want to read science fiction
if only to know what to do with themselves, now that they're
here.
jon courtenay grimwood
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
Readers, obviously.
The entire publishing industry could probably survive for a very long
time, possibly forever, on reprints.
Anne M. Marble
news:OkSM3.344$9%5.7...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:17:38 GMT, Jay Random <j.ra...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Which doesn't answer V-X's valid (if obnoxiously presented) point:
If
> >publishers _don't_ need writers, just what the hell _do_ they need?
>
> Readers, obviously.
>
> The entire publishing industry could probably survive for a very
long
> time, possibly forever, on reprints.
If you don't believe that, go to the local bookstore and take note of
the number of reprints. The shelf space that used to go to midlist
authors is now going to (yawn) reprints of Big Name Authors. The
publishers are also mining the older books by those authors -- in some
cases, turning up more sludge than ore in many cases. Some readers are
getting cautious and training themselves to check the copyright before
buying a "new" book by a favorite author. But not all readers are that
savvy. And even savvy readers buy things in a hurry and later regret
it. (I recently bought "The Seer King" because I like books where the
wizards are important characters. When I read the first couple of
pages and realized that the wizard later "goes bad," I was annoyed.
That wasn't what I was in the mood for!)
You'll find the same situation in the book sections in stores like
Wal-Mart and K-Mart -- and those stores don't have much shelf space to
begin with.
Richard Horton
wrote:
>
> Clifford Simak's idea, actually. Earth makes contact and all the
>ETs want is our pulp fiction.
And I think W. R. Thompson used a variant in his Kya stories.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Tippi
V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:10:21 GMT, in rec.arts.sf.composition, Tippi
> <tipp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >So what are you going to do about it?
>
> I dunno. What are you going to do about it?
I wasn't the one complaining. The system works pretty well for me.
> I mean, it's not like I offered or
> anything.
Kind of like people who complain about the political process but never
actually vote?
V-X
grimwood" <j...@hardcopy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>(Yeah, I started out many years ago having to read slush so I'm probably
>heavily biased. But as for - shock, horror - editors or their assistants
>not reading the whole script, I know one editor who reads only the first
>line... And at least he reads that, rather than just judging the script on
>the covering letter...)
Don't get me wrong...I wasn't suggesting that this was some fiendish plot. Why
on earth *would* anybody read every damned thing that came in the door? I'm also
not sure how this got picked up on...are you suggesting that multiple
submissions would force publishers to do just that? Why on earth?
As to 90% of everything being awful, I think it's closer to 99%. I may not have
worked at a publishing house, but I have worked in creative management, and
worked with freelancers a lot, and believe me, the art pickins ain't much
better. Oh, I could tell you stories of the insane shit people send in for art
jobs...never mind copywriters.
--Robert, has had to rewrite for copywriters, will never, ever, ever do it
again.
V-X
Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:05:15 -0700, V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>
>>Okay. Publishers don't need writers. You win. There couldn't possibly be an
>>element of "not recognizing your own cage," here, because the idea of publishers
>>without writers just makes so much damned sense.
>
>Um... you know, writers don't need publishers. As I pointed out
>earlier. If you don't like publishers, then screw 'em --
>self-publish. The Web is just waiting for you. Every town has a
>printer, and most of them work cheap.
Why this weird either/or, where the slightest assertion on the part of the
writer somehow kicks the publisher out of the picture?
Still sounds like a priesthood to me.
--Robert
V-X
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>In article <mmoDOL7uFipD+T...@4ax.com>, V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>>
>>And now I'm sure I'll hear from an assistant editor who really, really, really,
>>REALLY does read EVERY SINGLE WORD.
>
>Well, Marion Zimmer Bradley really did read every single word of
>every single MS. But she's dead (not as a result of reading the
>slush)
Or so you say...geez, that's devotion...I guess.
>Though Marion did perform one act of triage (or had her staff do
>it): anything badly typed or printed got returned unread.
>Anything single-spaced, or in faint ink, or in funny fonts, or in
>funny colors. Her justification is that her vision was bad as a
>result of her diabetes and strokes. But in fact no editor will
>read an MS. printed like that.
You mean no one will look at my novel-in-crayon? But it's going to change the
world!
>
>There's always an exception, and I got reminded about it the
>other day. There was one fantasy writer who, as late as the
>early 1950s, was still submitting his MSS. to his publishers
>hand-written with a quill pen.
>
>But he was Lord Dunsany, and we aren't.
I actually didn't know that about him...that's pretty cool. Hey, if I attach
"Lord" to my name, do I have a shot at getting that crayon thing published?
--Robert Lord. Yeah. I like it. Now all I need is eight-foot hair and a sidekick
in a floral print shirt.
V-X
Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>And now I'm sure I'll hear from an assistant editor who really, really, really,
>>REALLY does read EVERY SINGLE WORD.
>
>Gods, I hope not. What a loser that would be.
I didn't say she'd be telling the truth.
--Robert
V-X
<tipp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Kind of like people who complain about the political process but never
>actually vote?
Uh, you tell me where I can vote for how the publishing industry works, and I'll
go there.
In the meantime, to answer your question unasked while you were busy being
snotty (cheers on that, BTW), no, I don't think you have to come up with a
constructive solution every time you complain. Nor do I believe that *you* (you
you, not rhetorical you) do so. It's always a nice thing to pull out and bop
somebody else over the head with, though, when you can't think of a better
retort.
V-X
lini...@fozzie.chem.wisc.edu (Rachael Lininger) wrote:
>This is why all writers should run Seti@home on their computers (assuming
>they us an OS that will run it).
I have to say, this is one of the few things I've seen that convinced me that
the Internet was more than a massive, global time suck, and...I'm not really
into alien stuff. 10-year-old Robert was, though, and he thinks it's swell.
Tippi
V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:03:08 GMT, in rec.arts.sf.composition, Tippi
> <tipp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Kind of like people who complain about the political process but
never
> >actually vote?
>
> Uh, you tell me where I can vote for how the publishing industry
works, and I'll
> go there.
Actually, there are several ways to vote and I'll be happy to tell you
about two of them.
1. Start your own magazine and eschew standard industry guidelines.
Purchase hipwaders as a precaution.
2. Submit a story which breaks the rules (submit it to twenty magazines,
for instance), but do it with such brilliant work that the editors
suddenly realize they may be missing out on other equally brilliant work
because of their rules.
For the record, I'm speaking from personal experience. I tried the
first method about five years ago, back when I was spouting my own
little complaints about the industry. After dealing with the slush, I
got cured of my complaints pretty quick.
>It's always a nice thing to pull out
and bop
> somebody else over the head with, though, when you can't think of a
better
> retort.
Nah, didn't need to think of a better retort. I save those for special
occasions. Sad to say, I see enough posts just like yours that there's
no longer anything special about them.
Lois Tilton
> Why the hell shouldn't you be able to send a story
> to twenty magazines at once and get the best deal out of it?
There speaks a man who expects to be rejected and wants to get it over
with quickly.
If you get to the point where you expect the editors to -buy- your
stuff, the error of your proposed way will become clear to you.
LT
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:30:13 -0400, in rec.arts.sf.composition, Lawrence
>Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:05:15 -0700, V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Okay. Publishers don't need writers. You win. There couldn't possibly be an
>>>element of "not recognizing your own cage," here, because the idea of publishers
>>>without writers just makes so much damned sense.
>>
>>Um... you know, writers don't need publishers. As I pointed out
>>earlier. If you don't like publishers, then screw 'em --
>>self-publish. The Web is just waiting for you. Every town has a
>>printer, and most of them work cheap.
>
>Why this weird either/or, where the slightest assertion on the part of the
>writer somehow kicks the publisher out of the picture?
Look, publishers offer a service. If you don't like their terms,
don't use it. It's that simple.
Calling them lampreys and complaining that they _should_ be more
generous and considerate doesn't accomplish anything at all except
blowing off steam and making you look stupid. They _aren't_ generous
and considerate, and there's no reason from their point of view that
they should be.
So if you don't like the terms they offer, then just _don't use them_,
and stop bitching. It _is_ either/or.
>Still sounds like a priesthood to me.
No, like a business.
Julian Flood
> For the record, I'm speaking from personal experience. <> After dealing
with the slush,
Please tell us again about how horrid the slush really is. It's about the
only sort of post that cheers me up while I generate my own personal,
externally-aimed SP.
<strange image of man holding flamethrower to a door while shouting 'pay up
or the slush pile gets it'>
--
Julian Flood
Life, the Universe and Climbing Plants at www.argonet.co.uk/users/julesf.
Mind the diddley skiffle folk.
Brenda
Julian Flood wrote:
> Tippi wrote:
> > For the record, I'm speaking from personal experience. <> After dealing
> with the slush,
>
> Please tell us again about how horrid the slush really is. It's about the
> only sort of post that cheers me up while I generate my own personal,
> externally-aimed SP.
It is easy to find out what slush is like, from the comfort of your own home.
Surf around on the net, and find one of those 'display sites.' These are the
sites set up on the Net for posting manuscripts, or portions thereof, onto. The
idea is that editors, agents, and Hollywood producers can look them over and
buy. It is easy to recognize such sites, since the people who run them will
assure the visitor that this often happens. They often charge the authors a sum
for the service, too.
Artistically, the problem with this concept is that if you are charging authors
a fee to put their work onto the site, you have no motivation to eliminate
anything. So the most godawful junk will abound on the site. And that is what
a slush pile is like.
Professionally, the big problem is that editors and agents always have tons of
slush of their own in their offices, and hardly ever have to surf the net for
more. So the chances of making a professional sale by posting your work to such
a place is miniscule. If anyone has done so, I'd love to hear about it.
V-X
Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>Calling them lampreys
Lawrence, it was a fairly slight joke, it certainly wasn't worth your
pontificating about my future, and people who hate the publishing industry on
levels I'll never approach and been more public and venomous about it then I'll
ever be have done just fine as published writers.
For my part, obviously, I have a short temper, especially when provoked by
statements with an unstated "Now listen here, junior..." and a tendancy to
hyperbole when I'm all het up. I apologize for not tailoring my words more
carefully, so I didn't come off like a total newbie, convinced of my own
brilliance, or that said alleged genius would be all I needed to get published.
Y'all still read all that stuff in there, but I let you by being a dick.
Hi. I'm Robert Lee. I just walked out of a moderately high-profile high tech
career as a user interface and web designer. I used to draw comics. I've been
writing for the past six years, more seriously for the past two, and I'm pretty
much trying to get by from here on in on freelance jobs, so I can write more.
Some of what I write is science fiction. That's why I subbed to r.a.s.c.
>and complaining that they _should_ be more
>generous and considerate doesn't accomplish anything at all except
>blowing off steam and making you look stupid.
(a) I never said they should be "generous and considerate."
(b) What's wrong with blowing off steam?
>>Still sounds like a priesthood to me.
>
>No, like a business.
No. I know "business" and I know "bullshit." If you want to go look at my
resume, feel free. I've worked for masters of both.
Dorothy J Heydt
Julian Flood <jul...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Please tell us again about how horrid the slush really is. It's about the
>only sort of post that cheers me up while I generate my own personal,
>externally-aimed SP.
Well, I keep remembering MZB plaintively reminding everyone (in an
editorial) that she does *not* publish nurse novels.
If she had lived a little longer, I think I might've written a
story with the basic premise of a nurse novel, only fantasy and
worth reading, and sold it to her. I did that sort of thing
several times. Alas, no longer.
>
><strange image of man holding flamethrower to a door while shouting 'pay up
>or the slush pile gets it'>
Likely as not the editor, like the wee wee woman who took the
bone, would say, "TAKE IT!"
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
V-X
<tipp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>1. Start your own magazine and eschew standard industry guidelines.
>Purchase hipwaders as a precaution.
But..then I'd have *two* magazines.
(I've started, run and worked on several in the past fifteen-twenty years.
Next.)
>2. Submit a story which breaks the rules (submit it to twenty magazines,
>for instance), but do it with such brilliant work that the editors
>suddenly realize they may be missing out on other equally brilliant work
>because of their rules.
Oh, yeah, that'd work real well.
>For the record, I'm speaking from personal experience. I tried the
>first method about five years ago, back when I was spouting my own
>little complaints about the industry. After dealing with the slush, I
>got cured of my complaints pretty quick.
"Cured" or "co-opted?" C'mon, unsolicited submissions are kinda fun, as long as
the writers aren't freaks who stalk you because you won't run their horrible
shit. It's not like you have to read all the crap...
But I'm a big fan of the extremes of bad writing. Not enough to want to come up
with some kind of silly literary theory that makes posters to alt.sex.stories
the greatest authors in history, but truly awful writing turns a corner and
becames really damned amusing, sometimes.
I can see where reading it all day would kill you, though. I'm still not sure
how this has anything to do with simultaneous submissions, though.
>Nah, didn't need to think of a better retort.
Oh, well then why did I just waste three minutes responding to you when I could
have just said something witty like "I see posts like yours all the time and why
should I talk to you" and you'd have been just as happy?
Dorothy J Heydt
>
>
>It is easy to find out what slush is like, from the comfort of your own home.
>Surf around on the net, and find one of those 'display sites.'
>Artistically, the problem with this concept is that if you are charging authors
>a fee to put their work onto the site, you have no motivation to eliminate
>anything. So the most godawful junk will abound on the site. And that is what
>a slush pile is like.
That's a clever idea! Why did I never think of that? Because
I spend so little time on the Web, that's why.
Would you care to name an URL or two?
It would also make a useful rejoinder to the people who post to
the group wanting us to contribute stuff. "What makes you better
than {name}?"
CATJA ALEXANDRA PAFORT
> Why the hell shouldn't you be able to send a story
> to twenty magazines at once and get the best deal out of it?
Because in the unlikely event that twenty editors actually want to buy your
story, you will have to tell nineteen of them that you don't want their
services. Do you seriously think that they would fit you into their publishing
scheme again?
Catja, willing to stand on her head to get published, but not compromising on
quality
V-X
it (again). No excuse, but more apologies and all my hugs and kisses for being
an ubercrank this week.
Tippi
> > For the record, I'm speaking from personal experience. <> After
dealing
> with the slush,
>
> Please tell us again about how horrid the slush really is. It's about
the
> only sort of post that cheers me up while I generate my own personal,
> externally-aimed SP.
Gather 'round and I'll tell you a tale of slush...
I had lots of things handwritten in purple ink, plus a few things in
honest to goodness crayon. I'd always heard editors saying things about
crayon submission, but I thought they were joking! They're not. Though
I published mostly poetry and flash fiction, I got at least two novel
submissions. One guy sent me his submission using his employer's
envelopes and stationery. This was a law firm, and I got quite a scare
seeing my name on the front of a law firm's envelope. I also enjoyed
the submissions of fifteen folded pages stuffed into a business sized
envelope, with one stamp on the SASE, and a request to please return the
submission when I was done with it.
If you can avoid all that (and I'm betting you can), you're already
beating a good deal of the slush.
Brenda
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: '
> ....
> >Artistically, the problem with this concept is that if you are charging authors
> >a fee to put their work onto the site, you have no motivation to eliminate
> >anything. So the most godawful junk will abound on the site. And that is what
> >a slush pile is like.
>
> That's a clever idea! Why did I never think of that? Because
> I spend so little time on the Web, that's why.
>
> Would you care to name an URL or two?
>
I'm told Authorlink.com is supposed to be a honey. You might also try
http://www.writersshowplace.com
http://www.RoseDog.com
If they're still there, of course.
Brenda
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <3804BC67...@erols.com>, Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >It is easy to find out what slush is like, from the comfort of your own home.
> >Surf around on the net, and find one of those 'display sites.'
> ....
> >Artistically, the problem with this concept is that if you are charging authors
> >a fee to put their work onto the site, you have no motivation to eliminate
> >anything. So the most godawful junk will abound on the site. And that is what
> >a slush pile is like.
>
> That's a clever idea! Why did I never think of that? Because
> I spend so little time on the Web, that's why.
>
> Would you care to name an URL or two?
>
> It would also make a useful rejoinder to the people who post to
> the group wanting us to contribute stuff. "What makes you better
> than {name}?"
>
Can do, but give me a bit -- I want to find a really egregious one.
A. Sharp
V-X <v...@ungh.com> writes:
>On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:17:33 GMT, in rec.arts.sf.composition, Tippi
><tipp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>1. Start your own magazine and eschew standard industry guidelines.
>>Purchase hipwaders as a precaution.
>But..then I'd have *two* magazines.
>(I've started, run and worked on several in the past fifteen-twenty years.
>Next.)
>>2. Submit a story which breaks the rules (submit it to twenty magazines,
>>for instance), but do it with such brilliant work that the editors
>>suddenly realize they may be missing out on other equally brilliant work
>>because of their rules.
>Oh, yeah, that'd work real well.
>>For the record, I'm speaking from personal experience. I tried the
>>first method about five years ago, back when I was spouting my own
>>little complaints about the industry. After dealing with the slush, I
>>got cured of my complaints pretty quick.
>"Cured" or "co-opted?" C'mon, unsolicited submissions are kinda fun
>But I'm a big fan of the extremes of bad writing. Not enough to want to come up
>with some kind of silly literary theory that makes posters to alt.sex.stories
>the greatest authors in history, but truly awful writing turns a corner and
>becames really damned amusing, sometimes.
3. Start a contest for the *worst* writing, but in small doses. The name
Bulwar-Lytton has probably been preemptedv . . . .
A. Sharp
ax...@pge.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V-X
(A. Sharp) wrote:
>>But I'm a big fan of the extremes of bad writing. Not enough to want to come up
>>with some kind of silly literary theory that makes posters to alt.sex.stories
>>the greatest authors in history, but truly awful writing turns a corner and
>>becames really damned amusing, sometimes.
>
>3. Start a contest for the *worst* writing, but in small doses.
Somebody already did. You're looking at it.
> The name
>Bulwar-Lytton has probably been preemptedv . . . .
Yeah, there's that one, too...
V-X
<tipp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I had lots of things handwritten in purple ink, plus a few things in
>honest to goodness crayon. I'd always heard editors saying things about
>crayon submission, but I thought they were joking! They're not.
Yeah, I know. You get art submissions that way, too. On lined notebook paper,
hastily torn out.
V-X
ALEXANDRA PAFORT) wrote:
>V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>
>> Why the hell shouldn't you be able to send a story
>> to twenty magazines at once and get the best deal out of it?
>
>Because in the unlikely event that twenty editors actually want to buy your
>story, you will have to tell nineteen of them that you don't want their
>services. Do you seriously think that they would fit you into their publishing
>scheme again?
Why wouldn't they, while we're all being "professional?" I take rejections
gracefully...frankly, they don't really matter to me. I won't ask what you'd
have to say to me if I swore I'd never send a magazine anything again because of
a rejection, because I know what you'd say. Why is the same thing from
publishers tolerable, and even expected?
Why couldn't publishers take losing a piece because they didn't want it as badly
as somebody else, a relatively slight blow with a firm explanation attached to
it, at least?
They couldn't, because writers are supposed to act "professional" while
publishers act like (god, I'm sounding like a broken record) priests guarding
the Holy of Holies. You can still have a nice, high bar for people to jump over
w/o treating them like livestock.
Our end is wholly "professional," and old-timers rightfully jump on newbies for
not being so. You really won't get published if you don't play the right games,
and...what do you think I do, insert "To begin, I despise the way you do things,
and think it puts an undue burden on me that should rightfully be yours" as a
standard opening for cover letters?
The publishing end is entirely personal, mystical, precious and an all-around
bother that should change. No, I have no idea how, but then, I just got started.
I probably won't have any better idea in fifteen years, but if I do, I'll let
you know.
And now I'm done, so I'll let everybody else have the last word.
V-X
<v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>The publishing end is entirely personal, mystical, precious and an all-around
>bother that should change.
BTW, this shouldn't need to be said, but may need it anyway: I meant that end of
the author-publisher relationship, not publishing as a whole. I'm sure they're
*very* professional toward distributors, printers, retailers, publicity,
marketing and advertising agencies and media outlets they use for promotional
purposes. After all, every one of those groups carries weight on its own side of
its respective working relationship with a publisher.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>In article <Uw9N3.742$9%5.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, Lawrence wrote:
>
>>I'm not interested in reading your fits of bad temper. I've tried to
>>stay fairly polite, but you persist in playing the asshole. You've
>>been treading on the edge of my killfile for some time now; this post,
>>by virtue of admitting you've looked like a shithead, has both gotten
>>you a final reply and pushed you in.
>
>Took you long enough. :)
And I thought better of half of it -- I cancelled the post you're
quoting, though apparently it got through to you.
Didn't change the killfile, though.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>In article <19991013223824...@ng-fs1.news.cs.com>,
>tlamb...@cs.com wrote:
>
>>Hang in there! Your heart will thank you, your lungs will thank you,
>>etc. etc. etc. (and once you get your serenity back, even _we_ will
>>thank you!).
>
>You know, quote just a little text and people usually know what
>you're talking about. The above reads like it should be posted on
>alt.aa, not rasfc.
I think she's talking about V-X quitting smoking.
Hmm. I should've realized that someone who took his screen name from
a variety of nerve gas was probably not anyone I should respond to.
Tippi
V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:22:06 GMT, in rec.arts.sf.composition, Tippi
> <tipp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >I had lots of things handwritten in purple ink, plus a few things in
> >honest to goodness crayon. I'd always heard editors saying things
about
> >crayon submission, but I thought they were joking! They're not.
>
> Yeah, I know. You get art submissions that way, too. On lined notebook
paper,
> hastily torn out.
Oh yeah I forgot the art submissions. I wasn't actually accepting any
art work, but I got lots of submissions. Stuff drawn on newsprint,
folded, coffee-stained, blood-stained, tobacco-stained. Amazing.
Tippi
V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
> I can see where reading it all day would kill you, though. I'm still
not sure
> how this has anything to do with simultaneous submissions, though.
Simple.
Reading as much bad slush as I did was annoying. Having to read three
times as much of it would be three times as annoying, if not
debilitating. Some editors just wouldn't put up with it. There are
easier and better ways to make a living.
You said simsubbing would help people compete, or words to that effect.
Except when it's mostly crud competing against crud, all you're
competing for is the amount of time it takes to get rejected. With more
people simsubbing, the volume of slush increases, thus increasing
response times and defeating the purpose of simsubbing in the first
place.
TLambs1138
etc. (and once you get your serenity back, even _we_ will thank you!).
Seriously, this is great!
Jean Lamb, tlamb...@cs.com
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <Uw9N3.742$9%5.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, Lawrence wrote:
>I'm not interested in reading your fits of bad temper. I've tried to
>stay fairly polite, but you persist in playing the asshole. You've
>been treading on the edge of my killfile for some time now; this post,
>by virtue of admitting you've looked like a shithead, has both gotten
>you a final reply and pushed you in.
Took you long enough. :)
My mistake was not following through when I first threatened to
do so. Two posts later I rectified that mistake.
christopher....
--
El articulo es demasiado grande para su apartado.
Christopher Jorgensen
>Hang in there! Your heart will thank you, your lungs will thank you,
>etc. etc. etc. (and once you get your serenity back, even _we_ will
>thank you!).
You know, quote just a little text and people usually know what
you're talking about. The above reads like it should be posted on
alt.aa, not rasfc.
christopher....
Ross Smith
>
> And I thought better of half of it -- I cancelled the post you're
> quoting, though apparently it got through to you.
It got through here too, and I expect pretty much everywhere else. It
might save people a bit of trouble if ISPs explained to their customers
that, because of rogue cancels, the vast majority of news servers
stopped paying any attention to cancels several years ago.
--
Ross Smith ......... r-s...@ihug.co.nz ......... Auckland, New Zealand
"Well, yes, I was aiming at him, but I've never hit anything with
a rocket launcher before, so I didn't think it mattered." -- Axly
Ross Smith
>
> Our end is wholly "professional," and old-timers rightfully jump on newbies for
> not being so. You really won't get published if you don't play the right games,
> and...what do you think I do, insert "To begin, I despise the way you do things,
> and think it puts an undue burden on me that should rightfully be yours" as a
> standard opening for cover letters?
Have you ever wondered how many editors read this newsgroup?
Tippi
lawr...@clark.net wrote:
> Didn't change the killfile, though.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>
>> And I thought better of half of it -- I cancelled the post you're
>> quoting, though apparently it got through to you.
>
>It got through here too, and I expect pretty much everywhere else. It
>might save people a bit of trouble if ISPs explained to their customers
>that, because of rogue cancels, the vast majority of news servers
>stopped paying any attention to cancels several years ago.
Sigh.
Anne M. Marble
news:3805AADC...@ihug.co.nz...
> V-X wrote:
> >
> > Our end is wholly "professional," and old-timers rightfully jump
on newbies for
> > not being so.
> Have you ever wondered how many editors read this newsgroup?
Well, I don't think they're going to figure out his name from reading
these posts. Unless they're really good with tracking down information
from newsgroup posts. Then they could get a more lucrative job ... in
the computer industry.
TLambs1138
regard as an all-around Good Thing. Ishould have indicated that.
To those of you I confused, orry to have interrupted your rant.
Jean Lamb, tlamb...@cs.com
Christopher Jorgensen
In article <yzcN3.899$9%5.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, LWE wrote:
>lynn...@aol.com (Christopher Jorgensen) wrote:
>>tlamb...@cs.com wrote:
>>
>>>Hang in there! Your heart will thank you, your lungs will thank you,
>>>etc. etc. etc. (and once you get your serenity back, even _we_ will
>>>thank you!).
>>
>>You know, quote just a little text and people usually know what
>>you're talking about. The above reads like it should be posted on
>>alt.aa, not rasfc.
>
>I think she's talking about V-X quitting smoking.
Ah, so either he was using rasfc for a smoking cessation support
group or using quitting as an excuse for his behavior? Actually,
nevermind. If I'd wanted to know I wouldn't have killfiled him.
The biggest tragedy about V-X is that he did manage to generate
some interesting discussion, but the fact that he choose to do it
with the vehicle of a weeks dead thread, his habit of following-up
his own post with just one more "btw" (that added nothing), and
what I viewed as disrespect and rudeness were enough for me. When
it comes right down to it his signal to noise ratio just wasn't high
enough for me.
>Hmm. I should've realized that someone who took his screen name
>from a variety of nerve gas was probably not anyone I should respond
>to.
I can remember a newsgroup I participated in some many years ago where a user
had the loggin of "Zyclon-B" (I think that's right, not being a WWII
historian). People made post after post explaining why this was offensive and
polite requests that he change it. He only go obstinate.
The only time in usenet history that a public killfile was effective.
Wonder if it's the same guy? Actually, once again, I don't.
Dorothy J Heydt
Christopher Jorgensen <lynn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I can remember a newsgroup I participated in some many years ago where a user
>had the loggin of "Zyclon-B" (I think that's right, not being a WWII
>historian). People made post after post explaining why this was offensive and
Was there not a case of a rock band that took the same name, with
the same reason, and got something like the same reaction?
Or maybe we're used to offensive rock band names. I mean, after
Jello Biafra and the Dead Kennedys....
Anne M. Marble
news:38094dd...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:22:35 -0700, Samuel Paik
> <pa...@webnexus.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not sure what they'll use instead of guns, though.
> >
> >Bows and arrows. Crossbows, ballista, catapults... heck, you can
> >use the catapult to toss them into a wall...
>
> catapults made of surgical tubing: water balloons, but you have to
> underfill them or they break windows, shatter bones, and put holes
> in walls.
Careful! Some school kids will read this while surfing the Net. Then,
they'll get (gasp) ideas. They'll make catapults from rubber tubing
and shoot spitballs at the teachers. They'll make water balloons and
toss them at other kids in the school yard. Law suits will ensure. And
pretty soon, "Dateline" will be lurking in this newsgroup before
creating yet another program covering the dangers of the Internet.
Water balloons don't drench other students -- students drench other
students.
James Nicoll
Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:22:35 -0700, Samuel Paik
><pa...@webnexus.com> wrote:
>
>>> Actually the anti-gun types probably already are thinking about putting
>>> Lawrence up against the wall for that remark.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what they'll use instead of guns, though.
>>
>>Bows and arrows. Crossbows, ballista, catapults... heck, you can
>>use the catapult to toss them into a wall...
>
>catapults made of surgical tubing: water balloons, but you have to
>underfill them or they break windows, shatter bones, and put holes
>in walls.
My brother's acetyline powered cannons fire flaming tennis balls
hundreds of feet. Pretty sure I would not want to find myself in front of
one, though.
His kids' bottle rockets know branches off trees, so you might
want to add those to the list as well.
--
"You know, it's getting more and more like _Blade Runner_ down
here."
A customer commenting on downtown Kitchener
Alison Scott
>v...@ungh.com (V-X) wrote in <LXICOCnPlXwAMq...@4ax.com>:
>>BTW, ad agencies and web design agencies, two industries I'm more or
>>less familiar with, have similar issues--they charge insane rates
>>for workers who see maybe a tenth of that, and *everybody's*
>>strapped, because the money all goes into maintaining image. You
>>know, a marble entry floor with the company logo on it, a mahogany
>>conference table the size of Antartica, a view of downtown from the
>>twentieth floor, flying clients all over the map whenever they get
>>the itch, or going to see them, the CEO's Mercedes, etc. *That's*
>>where all the money goes, and it's an endless hole.
>
>
>Yeah, that sure describes book publishing.
>
>Excuse me, I have to go fly to Switzerland on the Tor corporate jet.
><snaps fingers> Bearers! Quickly! Load my crates of cognac and
>cigars!
I remember the massive mahogany conference table in the middle of your
palatial and luxurious office, in fact. Not to mention the vast range
of massive anterooms.
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk & www.fuggles.demon.co.uk
Multiple award-losing fanzine: www.moose.demon.co.uk/plokta
News and views for SF fans: www.plokta.com/pnn