A question for the editors who visit here
Victoria Strauss
you who aren't familiar with them, they're websites that (sometimes for
free, but more often for a fee) post a sample of a writer's novel (2,500
words or so), plus a short synopsis and bio, with the aim of attracting
agents and editors. The idea is to enable everyone to avoid the
slushpile--the writers because they're getting direct attention, the
editors and agents because the fiction has been pre-screened to weed out
the dogs.
My question: if you received a mailing from such a site, or saw it
advertised in a trade magazine, would you be interested in checking it
out?
-Victoria
--
Victoria Strauss
Homepage: http://www.sff.net/people/victoriastrauss
Writer Beware: http://www.sfwa.org/Beware/Warnings.html
P Nielsen Hayden
>Writers' display sites are a growing presence on the Web. For those of
>you who aren't familiar with them, they're websites that (sometimes for
>free, but more often for a fee) post a sample of a writer's novel (2,500
>words or so), plus a short synopsis and bio, with the aim of attracting
>agents and editors. The idea is to enable everyone to avoid the
>slushpile--the writers because they're getting direct attention, the
>editors and agents because the fiction has been pre-screened to weed out
>the dogs.
>
>My question: if you received a mailing from such a site, or saw it
>advertised in a trade magazine, would you be interested in checking it
>out?
No.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
tip...@my-dejanews.com
vstr...@bestweb.net wrote:
> Writers' display sites are a growing presence on the Web. For those of
> you who aren't familiar with them, they're websites that (sometimes for
> free, but more often for a fee) post a sample of a writer's novel (2,500
> words or so), plus a short synopsis and bio, with the aim of attracting
> agents and editors. The idea is to enable everyone to avoid the
> slushpile--the writers because they're getting direct attention, the
> editors and agents because the fiction has been pre-screened to weed out
> the dogs.
>
> My question: if you received a mailing from such a site, or saw it
> advertised in a trade magazine, would you be interested in checking it
> out?
I'm not an editor, but a writer who's been spammed by some of these "display
sites". They make enticing promises to new writers. I don't believe any of
them, though. I'd bet you good money that legit editors are several times
less likely to go to one of these sites than to read your manuscript out of
the slush.
Tippi N Blevins
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Brenda
tip...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I'd bet you good money that legit editors are several times
> less likely to go to one of these sites than to read your manuscript out of
> the slush.
>
One could imagine how such display sites might be useful to a pro editor. This
would happen if the site essentially served as a first reader -- rejecting all
the duds, watery Tolkien clones, the Star Trek ripoffs and semiliterate mss,
perhaps 90 percent of their submissions. Only the cream would go up on the
site, and the editors would visit to sip this cream. (I will point out that
reading all these mss is a hell of a lot of work, and skimming the cream
requires a taste and discernment that is a marketable skill.)
However, if a display site is charging writers money to get their ms up on the
site, then their goal must, necessarily, be to get as many writers onto the site
as possible. This would be how they make their money, after all. And therefore
the site would never turn any writer away, as long as he or she had money. And
at that point, how is the site different from your ordinary or garden slush
pile, which the writer can join for free by mailing a ms to a publisher?
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Mary K. Kuhner
[writers' display sites]
>I'm not an editor, but a writer who's been spammed by some of these "display
>sites". They make enticing promises to new writers. I don't believe any of
>them, though. I'd bet you good money that legit editors are several times
>less likely to go to one of these sites than to read your manuscript out of
>the slush.
Why would an editor trust the manager of a paid site (who has an obvious
financial interest in putting up as many stories as possible) to act
as a first-pass slushpile reader? Editors *have* slushpile readers,
and I'm sure they pick people they trust (those who don't do it
themselves). So the basic premise doesn't make any sense to me.
Submitting your own manuscript is cheap and direct, and also doesn't
raise any questions about whether Web publication takes away rights
you would want to sell to a print publication.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Dorothy J Heydt
>
>I'm not an editor, but a writer who's been spammed by some of these "display
>sites". They make enticing promises to new writers. I don't believe any of
>them, though. I'd bet you good money that legit editors are several times
>less likely to go to one of these sites than to read your manuscript out of
>the slush.
Nicely put.
Comparable to "your chance of winning the lottery is much
smaller than your chance of being hit by lightning on the way
to the store to buy the ticket."
In fact, it's probably worth pointing this out: it is so
universal a phenomenon that editors, and agents, DO NOT GO
LOOKING FOR WRITERS, but let the writers come to them, that
anything claiming to be an agent or editor that comes looking for
you is most likely a scam and you should run quickly in the
opposite direction.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
_A Point of Honor_ is out....
RdWaryer
>universal a phenomenon that editors, and agents, DO NOT GO
>LOOKING FOR WRITERS, but let the writers come to them, that
>anything claiming to be an agent or editor that comes looking for
>you is most likely a scam and you should run quickly in the
>opposite direction.
>
Exactly. I used to receive about a letter per month saying something along the
line of "I am a writer of sf/f. I have thirty completed stories. If you'd like
to see them, write and tell me so."
The web sites strike me as a high tech version of the same thing.
David
remove "deadspam" to reply by e-mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art is not Truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize Truth.
-- Picasso
Anncrispin
As long as the subject of writing scams has come up, just wanted to say that I
wrote up a handout on the subject that is available on the SFWA site for anyone
who'd like to download it and pass it out to their writers' groups. It's
called "Excuse Me, How Much Did It Cost You?" and is just about the right size
to fit onto one sheet, both sides.
SFWA is working at tracking and notifying the public of the dangers of writing
scams. It's like fighting hydras, I'm afraid, but we'll keep slogging.
Best,
-Ann C. Crispin
Vice President, SFWA
"Scam Czar"
Nancy Lebovitz
>
>However, if a display site is charging writers money to get their ms up on the
>site, then their goal must, necessarily, be to get as many writers onto the site
>as possible. This would be how they make their money, after all. And therefore
Actually, a site that did the first round of selection might be able to charge
more since it would be offering a better chance at being published.
Graydon
Victoria Strauss <vstr...@bestweb.net> wrote:
[writer's display sites]
>My question: if you received a mailing from such a site, or saw it
>advertised in a trade magazine, would you be interested in checking it
>out?
In the general case about novels, I don't like reading first three
chapters and then having to wait to get the book; this throws the
timing of the book off, for me, so that I enjoy the book in question
less. So I avoid the first three chapters (or sometimes much more) on
publisher's web sites.
Anybody who sends me UCE goes on my never-deal-with list; I'd avoid
buying a book with the name of someone who sent me UCE on it pretty
much forever.
Ads in trade magazines strike me as such a peculiar thing to do I'd
probably avoid the site on grounds that the folks producing it have a
very different understanding than I do of what's desireable in how one
goes about getting a book sold.
--
graydon@ | Twenty hundred years of teaching, give to each his legacy:
lara.on.ca | Plato, Buddha, Christ, or Lenin -- twenty tons of TNT.
-- Flanders and Swann, "Twenty Tons of TNT"
Dorothy J Heydt
>
>Anybody who sends me UCE goes on my never-deal-with list; I'd avoid
>buying a book with the name of someone who sent me UCE on it pretty
>much forever.
UCE?
Pierre Jelenc
> In article <78ve5c$180$1...@lara.on.ca>, Graydon <gra...@lara.on.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Anybody who sends me UCE goes on my never-deal-with list; I'd avoid
> >buying a book with the name of someone who sent me UCE on it pretty
> >much forever.
>
> UCE?
Spam.
http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.htm
"...if you would like to forward unsolicited commercial e-mail
(spam) to the Commission, please send it directly to
U...@FTC.GOV..."
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc | The Cucumbers "Total Vegitility" is out!
| Pawnshop's "Three Brass Balls" is out!
The New York City Beer Guide | RAW Kinder's "CD EP" is out!
http://www.nycbeer.org | Home Office Records http://www.web-ho.com
aurienne
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <78ve5c$180$1...@lara.on.ca>, Graydon <gra...@lara.on.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Anybody who sends me UCE goes on my never-deal-with list; I'd avoid
>>buying a book with the name of someone who sent me UCE on it pretty
>>much forever.
>
>UCE?
Unsolicited
Commercial
Email.
It;s the legal term for spam, from what I gather.
(I've actually gotten spam that says in the subject line "UCE: Guess
what?" And I admit to being perpetually amused at some of the more
creative spammers, the ones that make it look like you "accidentally" got
some "misdirected" mail, but even that technique's becoming common.
--
*****i am opening windows to see out, opening doors to go out, opening
books to find out. ***** Not only is time on my side, but I get financial
backing from humidity and the temperature owes me a favor.*****
***** auri...@webpixie.com ***** http://www.webpixie.com/ *****
WooF
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <78ve5c$180$1...@lara.on.ca>, Graydon <gra...@lara.on.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Anybody who sends me UCE goes on my never-deal-with list; I'd avoid
> >buying a book with the name of someone who sent me UCE on it pretty
> >much forever.
>
> UCE?
Unwanted Commercial E-mail - the formal name of Spam.
George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
Dorothy J Heydt
aurienne <auri...@fellspt.charm.net> wrote:
>>UCE?
>
>Unsolicited
>Commercial
>Email.
>
>It;s the legal term for spam, from what I gather.
>
>(I've actually gotten spam that says in the subject line "UCE: Guess
>what?" And I admit to being perpetually amused at some of the more
>creative spammers, the ones that make it look like you "accidentally" got
>some "misdirected" mail, but even that technique's becoming common.
I hate the ones that say "In response to your request, ..."
But I fix 'em. I send 'em all unread to my sysop, who makes a
tracking 'em down and complaining to their ISPs, or whatever it
is he does, so I don't have to.
Jouni Karhu
>In article <78v70s$qkc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <tip...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not an editor, but a writer who's been spammed by some of these "display
>>sites". They make enticing promises to new writers. I don't believe any of
>>them, though. I'd bet you good money that legit editors are several times
>>less likely to go to one of these sites than to read your manuscript out of
>>the slush.
>
>financial interest in putting up as many stories as possible) to act
>as a first-pass slushpile reader? Editors *have* slushpile readers,
>and I'm sure they pick people they trust (those who don't do it
>themselves). So the basic premise doesn't make any sense to me.
>
>Submitting your own manuscript is cheap and direct, and also doesn't
>raise any questions about whether Web publication takes away rights
>you would want to sell to a print publication.
Besides, if there happened to be something good enough to publish, why
would the publishers enter in what could very easily become a bidding
contest? Isn't that web-site actually sim-subbing of the highest
degree? Potentially every publisher sees the story at the same time
(if the publishers happened to read that site). I doubt any publishing
house would want to touch those sites with a pole of any length. As
Mr. Nielsen Hayden already so elegantly put, "No."
--
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Graydon
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <78ve5c$180$1...@lara.on.ca>, Graydon <gra...@lara.on.ca> wrote:
>>>Anybody who sends me UCE goes on my never-deal-with list; I'd avoid
>>>buying a book with the name of someone who sent me UCE on it pretty
>>>much forever.
>>
>
>
>Unsolicited
>Commercial
>Email.
>
>It;s the legal term for spam, from what I gather.
Spam is sending the same thing to many different news groups all at
once. Not the same critter, although various folks not technically
inclined have collapsed the terminology until 'spam' is 'anything sent
to my computer that I didn't want to have sent to it'.
>(I've actually gotten spam that says in the subject line "UCE: Guess
>what?" And I admit to being perpetually amused at some of the more
>creative spammers, the ones that make it look like you "accidentally" got
>some "misdirected" mail, but even that technique's becoming common.
I have no capacity for amusement with them whatsoever, short of being
able to make them skinny-dip in the polar bear pool at the zoo.
(mustn't have the bears ingesting anything harmful in the way of
clothing bits.)
Nancy Lebovitz
>>
>>
>>Unsolicited
>>Commercial
>>Email.
>>
>>It;s the legal term for spam, from what I gather.
>
>Spam is sending the same thing to many different news groups all at
>once. Not the same critter, although various folks not technically
>inclined have collapsed the terminology until 'spam' is 'anything sent
>to my computer that I didn't want to have sent to it'.
>
I agree that the meanings of spam and troll are sometimes diluted
to the point of uselessness, but I can't see a problem with calling
UCE 'spam'--it's a logical extension of the metaphor.
Rachael M. Lininger
On 31 Jan 1999, Graydon wrote:
[senders of unsolicited commercial email, sometimes called "spam"]
>I have no capacity for amusement with them whatsoever, short of being
>able to make them skinny-dip in the polar bear pool at the zoo.
>(mustn't have the bears ingesting anything harmful in the way of
>clothing bits.)
<shocked horror> You _can't_ risk feeding them to the polar bears. The
zookeepers, PETA, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the SPCA, and everyone
else (and their Canadian equivalents) would all be after your blood.
And the polar bears would be very upset with you, once they found out
what they'd eaten.
Well, I suppose that if you ranched them for a while first, and made
sure they ate lots of blueberries, it might be ok...
Rachael
--
Rachael M. Lininger | "It's not so much do what you like
lininger@ | as it is that you like what you do."
virtu.sar.usf.edu | _Sunday in the Park with George_
Rachael M. Lininger
On 30 Jan 1999, Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>In article <36B32AE2...@erols.com>, Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>>However, if a display site is charging writers money to get their ms
>>up on the site, then their goal must, necessarily, be to get as many
>>writers onto the site as possible. This would be how they make
>>their money, after all. And therefore
>
>Actually, a site that did the first round of selection might be able
>to charge more since it would be offering a better chance at being
>published.
The last time this came up, I looked at one of the sites. It was not a
company in which I wished to appear, even if I did think the idea at
all useful.
>>the site would never turn any writer away, as long as he or she had
>>money. And at that point, how is the site different from your
>>ordinary or garden slush pile, which the writer can join for free by
>>mailing a ms to a publisher?
It is different in that mailing directly to the editor will get the ms
read by someone in a position to do something about it (pass it up, or
send it back, or whatever). Sending it to a web site means that all
it's doing is sitting there, waiting to be laughed at by smart-alecky
wannabes like me, and ignored by any editor of any reputation
whatsoever (because if zie has a reputation, zie's got more than
enough ms to fill zir day).
I firmly believe those places are breeding grounds for scams. Putting
something there says (to me), "I don't know how publishing works, and
I want to do it the easy way."
Graydon
Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> wrote:
>In article <790fo7$8fg$1...@lara.on.ca>, Graydon <gra...@lara.on.ca> wrote:
commercial email]
>>>It;s the legal term for spam, from what I gather.
>>
>>Spam is sending the same thing to many different news groups all at
>>once. Not the same critter, although various folks not technically
>>inclined have collapsed the terminology until 'spam' is 'anything sent
>>to my computer that I didn't want to have sent to it'.
>>
>Do you think words have stable, true definitions?
Do I look like that much of an idiot?
>I agree that the meanings of spam and troll are sometimes diluted
>to the point of uselessness, but I can't see a problem with calling
>UCE 'spam'--it's a logical extension of the metaphor.
I was not expressing a problem with it; I was provided a correction to
the statement that UCE is the legal term for spam.
The conflation is natural from the end-user point of view; the two
things are very different beasts from the systems administration point
of view, and guess which one of those viewpoints dominates my thinking
about computer communications issues?
Zeborah
> (I've actually gotten spam that says in the subject line "UCE: Guess
> what?" And I admit to being perpetually amused at some of the more
> creative spammers, the ones that make it look like you "accidentally" got
> some "misdirected" mail, but even that technique's becoming common.
Do you mean the ones that go along the lines of "Hi, long time no see!
I found this great websit the other day with some really hot pix and
figured you'd want to take a look..."? I always thought they were
attempting to trick the receiver into thinking that they actually know
the sender, just temporarily forgot him/her. This sort of thing happens
to me a lot in "real" life, though not so much on the net.
Zeborah
angela...@aviano.af.mil
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <7902jo$e...@fellspt.charm.net>,
> aurienne <auri...@fellspt.charm.net> wrote:
> >(I've actually gotten spam that says in the subject line "UCE: Guess
> >what?" And I admit to being perpetually amused at some of the more
> >creative spammers, the ones that make it look like you "accidentally" got
> >some "misdirected" mail, but even that technique's becoming common.
>
> I hate the ones that say "In response to your request, ..."
Hah. One time I got spam on how to stop spam, with a list of the guilty that
ran over 500 names.
Ah, irony.
--
Angela
Victoria Strauss
> I firmly believe those places are breeding grounds for scams. Putting
> something there says (to me), "I don't know how publishing works, and
> I want to do it the easy way."
Exactly. There are plenty of people who are going for it, though.
There are many of these sites on the Web--and some of them charge as
much as $300 for a six-month listing.
IMO, this represents a very big pitfall for writers, not just
financially, but because it offers a multitude of falsehoods about how
publishing works. I was curious to see if others agreed. Thanks for
the responses!