*New Online Literary Journal!
ekh...@absinthe.org
This is a completely on-line and internet-aware literary journal which
accepts Fiction, Non-Fiction, and Poetry for publication every 2 months.
The site also hosts literary-related polls with graphical results. By
being completely online, we skirt many of the difficulties faced by
authors submitting to traditional journals while also allowing authors
to reach a virtually limitless audience. Too, readers are permitted to
submit their comments right along side the articles themselves. We are
also looking for editors who critique submissions in a very comfortable
web-based interface before "publication".
The Teary Siren was created by some very talented web designers and we
have high hopes for it. If you have any questions, please submit them to
'si...@absinthe.org'. Drop by today!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 20:15:10 GMT, ekh...@absinthe.org wrote:
>The Teary Siren was created by some very talented web designers and we
>have high hopes for it. If you have any questions, please submit them to
>'si...@absinthe.org'. Drop by today!
I like the site design and the concept. The submission guidelines are
clear and detailed, with one glaring omission. You seem to have
forgotten to include information on payment.
Perhaps this line from your submissions guidelines:
>Authors of pieces accepted for publication will be notified during the
> 7 week submission period and any further issues can then be resolved.
is intended to mean that payment is negotiable?
- Wayne
ekevi...@my-deja.com
You have made an interesting point. Simply, at the moment, there isn't
any payment. This has been an (admittedly large) hobby for a number of
us. Hopefully, and I certainly see no problem with this, if the activity
on the page grows enough, we can institute a contract with someone to do
banner advertisements. At that point, some sort of system payment may be
instituted.
This sort of thing has worked for other sites, notable
http://slashdot.org and http://linuxtoday.com, so I don't see why it
wouldn't work for us.
I'll make an additional note to that area.
Thanks & best wishes,
Kevin
In article <37dc190c.184399243@news>,
Sandy McCutcheon
problem for writers. Simply put, every writers organisation would warn you,
if you don't get paid for your work, don't allow its publication.
EKH
a contingent of writers; to that end, full ownership and
rights remain with the author - we only require permission
to publish it on our web site. The Siren is simply a low-key
community built to disseminate a writer's work. Readers may
post comments on those articles, and so forth. 'Community'
being the key word here.
(That said, it is not a whiteboard for the half-baked tale
either.)
If a writer can toss out submissions to big journals and
achieve publication, so much the better. Many writers can't.
And if, after publication on the Siren, after reading the
comments of our readers, his or her work (again, whose
ownership he/she still owns) is that much better, then we're
all happy.
This community aspect is very rife on the internet these
days, perhaps it has just not reached all of its corners.
Best wishes,
Kevin
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
paghat
<ekhNO...@absinthe.org> wrote:
> I disagree. Our purpose just is not to financially support
> a contingent of writers; to that end, full ownership and
> rights remain with the author - we only require permission
> to publish it on our web site.
The most salable aspect of an original work is first publication rights.
Appearing in an ezine means you've received the greater share of the
work's probable value. Only reprint rights could be sold thereafter
typicall for a fraction of what an original work is paid. So if you do not
pay even a small honmorarium you have essentially licked the insides out
of the orea & claimed you've done a favor for the kid whose orea it was.
Tell the phone company & your web access provider you're not a profit
making venture & therefore you won't be paying them for their services &
see how far you get. Cretins rip off writes like this every day because
writers & weak, they're dreamers, & quite often they're untalented enough
that if they don't let themselvese get mugged they won't have any
attention at all. In other words you rob writers because you can. You
don't rob your ISP or phone company because you can't.
> The Siren is simply a low-key
> community built to disseminate a writer's work. Readers may
> post comments on those articles, and so forth. 'Community'
> being the key word here.
Is that anything like Local Twelve, the Villians Thieves & Scoundrals Union?
>
> If a writer can toss out submissions to big journals and
> achieve publication, so much the better. Many writers can't.
Ah, there you go. Then why don't you just go ahead and advertise it as
"Written any stories too awful ever to sell anyway? I'll publish them in
my ezine!" But of course even your mommy won't ever want to read what's on
such a dumbass site.
> And if, after publication on the Siren, after reading the
> comments of our readers, his or her work (again, whose
> ownership he/she still owns) is that much better, then we're
> all happy.
he/she will never again own first publication rights. As well to chew up
that orea then spit it in the baker's lap & say, "there you go, it's all
yours."
> This community aspect is very rife on the internet these
> days, perhaps it has just not reached all of its corners.
A community of dunderheads fools & failures? What writer in his right mind
needs that? At least what you're describing is avowedly a place to go for
those who can't cut it in any actual marketplace, so at least your
hornswoggle isn't intended to fool anyone into believing they achieved
anything but a "howdy-do" by participating. Maybe you need a disclaimer at
your site, "Nothing at Siren was worth more than I paid for it."
-paghat the ratgirl
> Best wishes,
> Kevin
Chris Bolton
a story that's already been printed on the Internet, even on a non-paying
"community" site. When you ask a lot of publishers and editors this
question, you'll maybe be surprised at how consistent their answers are.
You get what you pay for, friend.
Chris A. Bolton
(Enemy to All Non-paying Publications!)
jpe...@cnw.com
EKH <ekhNO...@absinthe.org> wrote:
> I disagree. Our purpose just is not to financially support
> a contingent of writers;
Then sir, you are either a mooncalf or a would-be criminal.
> to that end, full ownership and rights remain with the author - we
only require permission to publish it on our web site.
After which said piece is as useless to the author as breasts on a
Brahma bull.
>The Siren is simply a low-key community built to disseminate a
writer's work. Readers may post comments on those articles, and so
forth.
I can think of nothing of less value than the critiques of talentless
wannabes and mooches that can't be troubled to go purchase a book or
magazine, instead opting for surfing e-zines in search of free
entertainment.
>'Community' being the key word here. (That said, it is not a
whiteboard for the half-baked tale either.)
For some reason the title "A Confederacy of Dunces" is running through
my mind as being particularly descriptive of this electronic klatch.
>
> If a writer can toss out submissions to big journals and
> achieve publication, so much the better.
Hmm, you don't suppose that it's due to an editor finding merit in a
particular piece and being willing to allocate part of their budget in
order to acquire said piece? That perhaps the writer in question has
painstakingly improved his/her craft to professional levels? Nah, that
couldn't be, could it?
>Many writers can't.
And many writers ought not to...
> And if, after publication on the Siren, after reading the
> comments of our readers, his or her work (again, whose
> ownership he/she still owns) is that much better, then we're
> all happy...
As an asylum full of morons playing with their poop, no doubt.
>
> This community aspect is very rife on the internet these
> days, perhaps it has just not reached all of its corners.
This particular "community" has certainly over-reached itself.
A pleasant day, and a better tomorrow...
John
Glenn Sasscer
Lucy Arlene Snyder wrote in message <7rjee5$75e$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>Oh. My. God. EKH wants to start a non-paying webzine? [*Gasp*] How
>*horrible*. My goodness, next thing you know EKH will be barbecuing
>puppies and pulling the wings off flies.
>
Well, you need to pull the wings off before mixing with the barbecue sauce,
or the wings get stuck between your teeth. And the puppies need to be
fresh... none of that obediance training. It only makes the meat tough. And,
while we're on the subject, mixing in the testicles of a non-paying publisher,
the barbecue sauce turns rancid. If you like rancid, great, but if not, then
definitely, writer beware!
Lucy Arlene Snyder
[snipped a bunch of spew against nonpaying publications]
Oh. My. God. EKH wants to start a non-paying webzine? [*Gasp*] How
*horrible*. My goodness, next thing you know EKH will be barbecuing
puppies and pulling the wings off flies.
Look, folks, no-one's forcing you to submit your work to a nonpaying
publication. If you find that you wish to participate in the community of
writers and readers and decide to submit a poem or story to a nonpaying
webzine that you enjoy, lovely. If you think that creating art for art's
sake is a fool's game and you're determined that someone must pay for your
work before you'll share it, also lovely. But if that's the case, what
are you doing wasting your precious words on Usenet?
After all, if you've got enough energy and pent-up anger to rake EKH over
the coals for trying to start a creative outlet for writers, you surely
have enough spit and vigor to go write that Great American novel.
If you're angry and indignant that there are so few paying markets out
there, start one of your own! After all, if you believe that EKH secretly
has the resources to create a viable paying market but he's willfully and
maliciously trying to cheat writers out of their fair share, then surely
creating said viable paying market is a simple proposition and any of you
could do it, right? So go to it, folks! If you want something done right....
Of course, if you're mostly interested in money (rather than in crafting
tales and verse and sharing your work with people who will enjoy them) I'd
suggest taking a class in C++ or Java or accounting. Because all the
professional, sell-everything-they-write-and-never-give-it-away* fiction
writers I know are lucky to break $20,000 a year. Not the best way to get
that house with the 3-car garage.
Peace and pro sales to all,
LAS
* Well, actually, almost all the pros I know *will* give their work away
on occasion to projects and people they deem worthy. It's that pesky,
naive "labor of love" philosophy they can't quite seem to shake.
Eduardo Suastegui
> authors submitting to traditional journals
Would one of these difficulties hinge on the whole nasty, messy payment
thing?
--
Eduardo Suastegui
http://members.xoom.com/esuastegui
If the e-mail address contains "701" remove these numbers
paghat
<lus...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> Look, folks, no-one's forcing you to submit your work to a nonpaying
> publication.
No one forced you to walk in the park when you got raped.
-paghat
ekevi...@my-deja.com
I confess I'm quite suprised at the bile I've dug up here. Try
and do a good turn...
This quoted note below nicely punctuates my views on this subject.
Personally, it doesn't really matter to me; if you want to participate,
you're welcome to, if not, fine.
Good luck & best wishes,
K
In article <7rjee5$75e$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
Lucy Arlene Snyder <lus...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> In rec.arts.horror.written paghat <pag...@my-dejaUNSPAMO.com> wrote:
>
> [snipped a bunch of spew against nonpaying publications]
>
> Oh. My. God. EKH wants to start a non-paying webzine? [*Gasp*] How
> *horrible*. My goodness, next thing you know EKH will be barbecuing
> puppies and pulling the wings off flies.
>
> Look, folks, no-one's forcing you to submit your work to a nonpaying
The Last Real Marlboro Man
wrote:
>If a writer can toss out submissions to big journals and
>achieve publication, so much the better. Many writers can't.
You get what you pay for, sir.
- Wayne
Reed Andrus
ekevi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I confess I'm quite suprised at the bile I've dug up here. Try
> and do a good turn...
And I'm surprised that you're surprised. If you've spent any amount of
time on this particular newsgroup you would know that the negative
responses were both typical and overly restrained for both Ms. Ratgirl
and Mr. Pelan. Since you also posted your message to other newsgroups
with peopled with like-minded individuals, I _wouldn't_ be at all
surprised to learn these responses were universal.
> This quoted note below nicely punctuates my views on this subject.
Perhaps, but it doesn't change the responses.
> Personally, it doesn't really matter to me; if you want to participate,
> you're welcome to, if not, fine.
>
> Good luck & best wishes,
> K
And to you as well.
... Reed
John Michael Scalzi II
had the unmitigated gall to say:
>But. As Marshall McLuhan said, we tend to look at things and invent
>things by looking in a rear-view mirror. Thus: the "horseless
>carriage." The majority of non-electronic "little" (literary) magazines
>have never paid much beyond payment in copies. It's pretty predictible
>that the e- versions would continue in that tradition.
This is a specious comparison, however, since the publishing costs
incurred in online publishing can be substantially lower than in the
print medium -- no costs for paper, publishing or distribution. It's
not entirely unreasonable for writers to hope or even assume that some
of the savings the "publisher" garners in the online medium might be
used to, you know, PAY something.
--
John Scalzi, Freelance Troublemaker
www.scalzi.com
"You are the perfect example of a man too lazy to fail."
-- The Goddess Kristine Blauser Scalzi
John Michael Scalzi II
<lus...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> had the unmitigated gall to say:
>In rec.arts.horror.written paghat <pag...@my-dejaUNSPAMO.com> wrote:
>
>[snipped a bunch of spew against nonpaying publications]
>
>Oh. My. God. EKH wants to start a non-paying webzine? [*Gasp*] How
>*horrible*. My goodness, next thing you know EKH will be barbecuing
>puppies and pulling the wings off flies.
No one's suggesting EKH is inhuman, merely cheap.
>If you're angry and indignant that there are so few paying markets out
>there, start one of your own! After all, if you believe that EKH secretly
>has the resources to create a viable paying market but he's willfully and
>maliciously trying to cheat writers out of their fair share, then surely
>creating said viable paying market is a simple proposition and any of you
>could do it, right? So go to it, folks! If you want something done right....
It is not in fact simple to start a paying publication, but it does
not necessarily follow from that this somehow makes creating a
non-paying market all right. Particularly if there's a suggestion that
such a venture is intended to be for profit. EKH has suggested at some
point in the future that he/she might attract banner ads, and then
he'll get around to paying writers. To which I say, crap -- if you
plan to make money off it (or even *dream* of making money off of it),
pay your writers first. No other business would even suggest making
such a ridiculous deal. If a restaurant can't suggest that it will pay
the grocer after it starts making money, I don't see why a "publisher"
should suggest the same to a writer.
>Of course, if you're mostly interested in money (rather than in crafting
>tales and verse and sharing your work with people who will enjoy them) I'd
>suggest taking a class in C++ or Java or accounting. Because all the
>professional, sell-everything-they-write-and-never-give-it-away* fiction
>writers I know are lucky to break $20,000 a year. Not the best way to get
>that house with the 3-car garage.
This is a deeply dumb argument. Since no one you know makes any money
writing fiction, one should not expect to be paid for one's work?
Regardless of whether one makes their *living* from writing, if one's
writing is good enough to be published, one ought to have the
reasonable expectation that it's good enough to be paid for.
I am a writer; I am interested in money. I write for my own amusement
as well, without expectation of recompensation -- but I DON'T hand my
writing over to someone else for free so that THEY can make money off
of it. Those who expect that writers should are either cynically
preying on the hopeful, or, at the very least, woefully clueless.
ekevi...@my-deja.com
In article <qs=dN2Evgb+37Nb...@4ax.com>,
John Michael Scalzi II <jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 1999 18:05:57 GMT, Lucy Arlene Snyder
> <lus...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> had the unmitigated gall to say:
>
> >In rec.arts.horror.written paghat <pag...@my-dejaUNSPAMO.com> wrote:
> >
> >[snipped a bunch of spew against nonpaying publications]
> >
> >Oh. My. God. EKH wants to start a non-paying webzine? [*Gasp*] How
> >*horrible*. My goodness, next thing you know EKH will be barbecuing
> >puppies and pulling the wings off flies.
>
> No one's suggesting EKH is inhuman, merely cheap.
I'm a student, abject cur. And a medical one at that - excess money, I
assure you, is very foreign to me.
>
> >If you're angry and indignant that there are so few paying markets
out
> >there, start one of your own! After all, if you believe that EKH
secretly
> >has the resources to create a viable paying market but he's willfully
and
> >maliciously trying to cheat writers out of their fair share, then
surely
> >creating said viable paying market is a simple proposition and any of
you
> >could do it, right? So go to it, folks! If you want something done
right....
>
> It is not in fact simple to start a paying publication, but it does
> not necessarily follow from that this somehow makes creating a
> non-paying market all right. Particularly if there's a suggestion that
> such a venture is intended to be for profit. EKH has suggested at some
> point in the future that he/she might attract banner ads, and then
> he'll get around to paying writers. To which I say, crap -- if you
> plan to make money off it (or even *dream* of making money off of it),
> pay your writers first.
See above. I have no problem paying writers if things become profitable.
I am _not_ going to dump what little money I have in to appeasing people
with pitances whilst breaking myself in the hopes of having some
seething hobby sometime far down the road.
>No other business would even suggest making
No one I know said 'business'.
> I am a writer; I am interested in money.
Yes, so we see. Indeed, it seems most of this group is entirely
mercenary.
>I write for my own amusement
> as well, without expectation of recompensation -- but I DON'T hand my
> writing over to someone else for free so that THEY can make money off
> of it. Those who expect that writers should are either cynically
> preying on the hopeful, or, at the very least, woefully clueless.
So don't "hand it over". Just go away.
Aeric Eynan
What's this?! Who do you think you are? The God of all Gods?
I don't really see the point you're making, just discriminating people...
Everyone is free to post his or her story for free! Noone would be for most
of these stories, or the authors would never have the idea to carry it to a
PAYING publisher, because they simply think their writing skills are not
good enough for that... So why just leave these wonderful stories collect
dust somewhere. I think a place where you can make your story accessible to
others, share what you've created, and get some critics never did any harm!
Every big author has started up from a Wannabe, only to discover his skills
and have the courage to carry his work to a publisher. In my opinion e-zines
are favorable for the discovery of new talented authors... they can earn
their money later!
<jpe...@cnw.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 7rjmjc$722$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <2750ac20...@usw-ex0106-042.remarq.com>,
> EKH <ekhNO...@absinthe.org> wrote:
> > I disagree. Our purpose just is not to financially support
> > a contingent of writers;
>
> Then sir, you are either a mooncalf or a would-be criminal.
>
> > to that end, full ownership and rights remain with the author - we
> only require permission to publish it on our web site.
>
> After which said piece is as useless to the author as breasts on a
> Brahma bull.
>
> >The Siren is simply a low-key community built to disseminate a
> writer's work. Readers may post comments on those articles, and so
> forth.
>
> I can think of nothing of less value than the critiques of talentless
> wannabes and mooches that can't be troubled to go purchase a book or
> magazine, instead opting for surfing e-zines in search of free
> entertainment.
>
> >'Community' being the key word here. (That said, it is not a
> whiteboard for the half-baked tale either.)
>
> For some reason the title "A Confederacy of Dunces" is running through
> my mind as being particularly descriptive of this electronic klatch.
> >
> > If a writer can toss out submissions to big journals and
> > achieve publication, so much the better.
>
> Hmm, you don't suppose that it's due to an editor finding merit in a
> particular piece and being willing to allocate part of their budget in
> order to acquire said piece? That perhaps the writer in question has
> painstakingly improved his/her craft to professional levels? Nah, that
> couldn't be, could it?
>
> >Many writers can't.
>
> And many writers ought not to...
>
> > And if, after publication on the Siren, after reading the
> > comments of our readers, his or her work (again, whose
> > ownership he/she still owns) is that much better, then we're
> > all happy...
>
> As an asylum full of morons playing with their poop, no doubt.
> >
> > This community aspect is very rife on the internet these
> > days, perhaps it has just not reached all of its corners.
>
> This particular "community" has certainly over-reached itself.
>
>
> A pleasant day, and a better tomorrow...
>
>
> John
>
>
John Michael Scalzi II
unmitigated gall to say:
>I don't know why I bother:
Neither do we, dearie.
>>No other business would even suggest making
>
>No one I know said 'business'.
By suggesting that you might one day sell banner ads, you state your
intent to make money -- and so, it's a business. In which case, pay
up, chuckles.
>> I am a writer; I am interested in money.
>
>Yes, so we see. Indeed, it seems most of this group is entirely
>mercenary.
If by "mercenary" you mean "not stupid enough to give away for free
what we can use to pay our mortgages and bills," guilty as charge.
You're going to find that accusing people of wanting to make money
from their writing is not going to put you in a very sympathetic light
around here.
>>I write for my own amusement
>> as well, without expectation of recompensation -- but I DON'T hand my
>> writing over to someone else for free so that THEY can make money off
>> of it. Those who expect that writers should are either cynically
>> preying on the hopeful, or, at the very least, woefully clueless.
>
>So don't "hand it over". Just go away.
You first, cheap-o.
Glenn Sasscer
Leslie wrote in message <37DDB7...@postmark.net>...
>Glenn Sasscer wrote:
>>
>> Lucy Arlene Snyder wrote in message <7rjee5$75e$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> >*horrible*. My goodness, next thing you know EKH will be barbecuing
>> >puppies and pulling the wings off flies.
>> >
>>
>> or the wings get stuck between your teeth. And the puppies need to be
>> fresh... none of that obediance training. It only makes the meat tough. And,
>> while we're on the subject, mixing in the testicles of a non-paying publisher,
>> the barbecue sauce turns rancid. If you like rancid, great, but if not, then
>> definitely, writer beware!
>
>
>things by looking in a rear-view mirror. Thus: the "horseless
>carriage." The majority of non-electronic "little" (literary) magazines
>have never paid much beyond payment in copies. It's pretty predictible
>that the e- versions would continue in that tradition.
>
I'm sorry. I thought this was a horror writing newsgroup. While I agree,
non-paying publishers are a horror to deal with all their own, I struggle
to see what they have to do with eating puppies. Here we have a very
juicy subject... yes, I meant to say that, and we spoil it by talking about
non-paying publishers. It's enough to cause one to lose their appetite.
Now that this issue has been talked to death, let's exchange recipes.
By the way, has anyone figured out how to burn the hair off of them. I'm
talking about the puppies, not the publishers. I'm getting tired of shaving
the bastards (again, not the publishers) before throwing them on to boil.
Oh, and as a hint to all, I tried putting them in the microwave live, but it
made an awful mess. No, this time I was talking about the publisher.
paghat
> ekevi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > I confess I'm quite suprised at the bile I've dug up here. Try
> > and do a good turn...
>
> And I'm surprised that you're surprised. If you've spent any amount of
> time on this particular newsgroup you would know that the negative
> responses were both typical and overly restrained for both Ms. Ratgirl
> and Mr. Pelan. Since you also posted your message to other newsgroups
> with peopled with like-minded individuals, I _wouldn't_ be at all
> surprised to learn these responses were universal.
Yeah the killer is that the deluded eziner DIDN'T know what to expect
which suggests he only came to UseNet to spew SPAM. If he'd cared about
anyone here he'd've seen all these opinions plenty of times.
-paghat
paghat
wrote:
> HEY HEY HEY!!!!
IT'S YOGI BEAR!
> What's this?! Who do you think you are? The God of all Gods?
Who is John Pelan??? God of all gods perhaps not but one of the gods no doubt.
> I don't really see the point you're making, just discriminating people...
> Everyone is free to post his or her story for free! Noone would be for most
> of these stories, or the authors would never have the idea to carry it to a
> PAYING publisher, because they simply think their writing skills are not
> good enough for that... So why just leave these wonderful stories collect
> dust somewhere. I think a place where you can make your story accessible to
> others, share what you've created, and get some critics never did any harm!
> Every big author has started up from a Wannabe,
Depends on your definition of a Wannabe. Mostly the term is
interchangeable with Never Will Be. Quite often writers start out honestly
having stories to tell. They were never Wannabes. They just always was.
By and large only a complete goof would attempt to put on a public concert
after one piano lesson. It goes for writing too. If it's not ready for
publication, putting it on the net is exactly like expecting someone to
listen to you play your one-string violin with a twizzler & call it
Vivaldi. Confronting the marketplace is an essential part of learning;
finding ways to avoid the marketplace while writing stories that attempt
to be a commercial genre product, well, it just lame. All stories put in
ezines should be headed "Another failure gives up by putting his stinky
writing here."
> only to discover his skills
> and have the courage to carry his work to a publisher. In my opinion e-zines
> are favorable for the discovery of new talented authors...
And pansies meow like cats.
-paghat the ratgirl
Eve Rings
>ezines should be headed "Another failure gives up by putting his stinky
>writing here."
You have got to be kidding.
Eve
"Hey neighbor, what happens when the speed is gone? We sped through seven
straight blondes."
Lifter Puller, "Let's Get Incredible."
paghat
xeven...@aol.com (Eve Rings ) wrote:
> > All stories put in
> >ezines should be headed "Another failure gives up by putting his stinky
> >writing here."
>
> You have got to be kidding.
>
> Eve
You have got to be hoping not.
Eve Rings
How can you say that though? Some of the best things I've read have first
appeared on the Internet.. Kelly Link's "The Specialist's Hat", Bel Wilson's
"Strays", .. Event Horizon is always worth a read. Goth Net has some pretty
good fiction. Hell, even my "The Cannibal's Daughter" has to be one of the best
things I've written and it appeared on the web.. 'Splain yourself, Lucy..
Ian McDowell
xeven...@aol.com (Eve Rings ) wrote:
>How can you say that though? Some of the best things I've read have first
>appeared on the Internet.. Kelly Link's "The Specialist's Hat", Bel Wilson's
>"Strays", .. Event Horizon is always worth a read. Goth Net has some pretty
>good fiction.
I'll second that, as I've recommended both stories before. "The
Specialist's Hat" was, imho, the best horror story of 1998 and the best
ghost story of the last decade. It deserved a Stoker award, or at least a
nomination. It didn't get one, sadly, but it's not exactly been
overlooked; Steve Jones and Ellen Datlow both reprinted it in their
respective Best of the Year anthologies, and now it's on the World Fantasy
Award final ballot, where it's competing with stories by Neil Gaiman
(who's publically said that he'll be embarassed if he wins, as he
considers "The Specialist's Hat" to be immeasurably better than his own
"Shoggoth's Old Peculiar"), John Kessel, Ellen Kushner and Kelly herself
(her other nominated story, "Travels With the Snow Queen," originally
appeared in a xeroxed free-zine that she and her boyfriend publish).
Mehitobel Wilson's "Strays" is an almost equally powerful story, less
spooky but perhaps more viscerally disturbing, and it too is starting to
gather considerable buzz, although it's too early to know if anyone is
going to reprint (although I'm expect to) or if it will gather any award
nominations (although I recc'd it for a Stoker and have my fingers
crossed for it). It's currently my favorite horror story of 1999, edging
out Caitlin Kiernan's "Rats Live on No Evil Star" from Steve Jones' WHITE
OF THE MOON (although I recc'd that one, too).
>Hell, even my "The Cannibal's Daughter" has to be one of the best
>things I've written and it appeared on the web..
I think The Cannibal's Daughter" is possibly a stronger story than the one
Eve has sold to a paying print zine (although I do like that one, too).
Ian McDowell
Eve Rings
>Eve has sold to a paying print zine (although I do like that one, too).
Well, thanks for your opinion. I think the story that was sold to the print
magazine is more the type of thing they do publish (More darkly romantic-- in a
sense) than TCD, which is just difficult-- and more surreal. I didn't send them
TCD, because I truly think it will end up somewhere else, if people can move
beyond what they think the metaphors behind it are.
I do think some damn fine stuff is showing up on the web.
Eve Rings
Women's Horror Online Reverence Ensemble
http://magdaleneandthemarquis.com/Whore/Index.htm
Magdalene and the Marquis
http://www.magdaleneandthemarquis.com
jpe...@cnw.com
210.atln.grid.net>,
ian...@mindspring.com (Ian McDowell) wrote:
> In article <19990914184218...@ng-fb1.aol.com>,
> xeven...@aol.com (Eve Rings ) wrote:
>
> >How can you say that though? Some of the best things I've read have
first appeared on the Internet.. Kelly Link's "The Specialist's Hat",
Bel Wilson's "Strays", .. Event Horizon is always worth a read. Goth
Net has some pretty good fiction.
Apples and oranges... Gothic.net is a paying market that buys limited
rights for a specific period of time. Event Horizon is also a paying
market. There's also a world of difference between a professional
writer placing a sampling of their work on the 'net for the purposes of
exposure and the sad, tragic sod that routinely sends out unpublishible
crap to e-zines so that they can point at the screen and say "Look, I'm
published".
The gray area is the start-up like our friend Kevin was spamming about.
Is this the quixotic vision of a naif or a calculated ploy to make
money off of naive writers? Doesn't really matter, one's stupid and the
other's morally repugnant.
Ian, you've mentioned some fine stories in your post, and I have to
admit being a bit disappointed that I wasn't reading for an anthology
at the time and given a chance to buy them. Since I don't know the
author's motives in distributing them free, I'll not speculate as to
why these particular tales didn't find their way into anthologies as
they certainly deserved to. Again, these are the exception rather than
the rule.
John [Recently elevated to the status of minor deity and as such, prone
to throw thunderbolts :-) ]
jpe...@cnw.com
No, merely a minor divinity (see elsewhere in this thread).
> I don't really see the point you're making,
Then lurk and learn, my good fellow!
just discriminating people...
Yes, and your point? I like to think that I'm discriminating in many
things, in the area of literature I prefer good writing to crap. I
recently assembled an anthology (containing FYI at least three first
professional sales) and the publisher was paying me to be
discriminating. Of course, the key here is that the publisher was
paying and therefore expected something of value.
>
> Everyone is free to post his or her story for free!
This has never been in dispute.
>Noone would be for most of these stories,
"Noone would be for most of these stories" ? If the former lead singer
of Herman's Mermits is indeed for most of these stories, he ought to
step up to the plate and take a swing at assembling an anthology.
>or the authors would never have the idea to carry it to a PAYING
publisher, because they simply think their writing skills are not good
enough for that... So why just leave these wonderful stories collect
dust somewhere. I think a place where you can make your story
accessible to others, share what you've created, and get some critics
never did any harm!
In other words, if even the authors feel the work doesn't merit
professional publication, you want the stories posted anyway because
you'll find them to be "wonderful". This is what you just said, isn't
it?
> Every big author has started up from a Wannabe, only to discover his
skills and have the courage to carry his work to a publisher.
No, every professional writer made the decision to put in the time and
energy to hone their craft to a professional level. They were never
"Wannabes", there's a world of difference.
>In my opinion e-zines are favorable for the discovery of new talented
authors... they can earn their money later!
And how is it that one is supposed to be "discovered", if as you say
earlier, their work isn't of professional caliber? Please try and
organize your thoughts before committing them to paper or electronic
media! The entire thrust of your argument is to present a paradox that
invalidates every statement that you've made in favor of e-zines. What
would one "discover" by reading the sub-standard work that you're
speaking of? That so-and-so isn't very good? How does this revelation
enhance the author's chances for success? I have a number of stories
that I wrote twenty years ago that I can assure you will never see the
light of day. While you might have found them "wonderful", I found them
to be something else entirely. Rather than inflict my early efforts on
the world, I did the professional thing; I cribbed what little that was
good for use at a future time and tossed out what was bad (most of it).
Posting these "wonderful" stories would have allowed only the discovery
that twenty years ago I couldn't write very well. A kind editor took
the time years ago to point out just exactly what was wrong with my
writing. When I tried writing again much later in life I applied all
that I had learned about the craft and have achieved some small measure
of success as a result.
Now put down those Cheetos, log off of your computer and go read
something of merit, you'll be a better person for it.
John Pelan
The Chocolate Lady
News Flash, ekevi...@my-deja.com reported:
>I don't know why I bother:
>
Neither do we.
>
>See above. I have no problem paying writers if things become profitable.
Why don't you just start getting some income for your site by selling
ad space and *then* tell us you'll publish our work for a percentage
of the income.
>I am _not_ going to dump what little money I have in to appeasing people
>with pitances whilst breaking myself in the hopes of having some
>seething hobby sometime far down the road.
Even a pitance is better than nothing. I write poetry. Many
publications don't offer any remuneration for publication of poetry.
This is unfortunate, but it is a fact of life for poets. I have
chosen to submit my poetry to publications which do offer some sort of
payment - however minimal. They are getting first rights to my work
(de facto, even if not noted by the publisher as such), so I think I
should get something in return.
>> I am a writer; I am interested in money.
>
>Yes, so we see. Indeed, it seems most of this group is entirely
>mercenary.
It may be sad, but it is true. So sorry you misunderstood us in the
first place.
I take it, however, you are not mercenary. I may therefore assume
that when you have finished your medical degree and are fully
qualified to practice medicine, that you will treat all of your
patients for free. How very generous of you.
(Now *that* I wanna see!)
The Chocolate Lady
Davida Chazan
~*~*~*~*~*~
"The more publicly pious a person is, the stupider he or she is likely to be."
Jon Carroll (Tuesday, July 6, 1999, San Francisco Chronicle)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.lutzbooks.com/booksale/
Sandy McCutcheon
From the postings I was not the only one who objects to this ongoing abuse
of writers. I agree with the other responses. Get the finance, then
publish. I would be happy to offer you short stories, extracts from
novels, poetry... just let me know what your rates are.
cheers
Sandy
gwco...@my-deja.com
While I don't know EH's payment policies,
Mehitobel's "Strays" appeared in GothicNet which
pays three-cents a word, so she hardly
distributed it free.
Gary
Eve Rings
something that's really great. I was recently Pillow Scream's Featured Author,
and I did that because they usually have pretty nifty people (Lucy Taylor is
next month's) . If an artist I really dig needs something, I can usually be
persuaded.. but for the most part, a lot of Ezines pay these days, and all
though it may only be 1-3c/word, at least it's something.
As for the storries not being snagged for anything else yet, I think it's still
very early.. I know both mine and Bel's stories were red'd for Sttoker
consideration, and I know we both got paid for 'em.
XXXX,
Eve
Ian McDowell
>Ian, you've mentioned some fine stories in your post, and I have to
>admit being a bit disappointed that I wasn't reading for an anthology
>at the time and given a chance to buy them. Since I don't know the
>author's motives in distributing them free, I'll not speculate as to
>why these particular tales didn't find their way into anthologies as
>they certainly deserved to. Again, these are the exception rather than
>the rule.
Well, except for Kelly Link's _other_ World Fantasy Award nominated story,
"Travels With the Snow Queen", which first appeared in a free xerox zine
(but was quickly snapped up by Ellen Datlow and Terry Windling for one of
their fairy tale anthologies), none of the stories I mentioned were given
away for free. At least, I know that Mehitobel's "Strays" and Kelly's
"The Specialist's Hat" were sold for professional rates, and I'm pretty
sure that the _Chiaroscuro_ webzine, where Eve's evocative and disturbing
"The Cannibal's Daughter" appeared, is also a paying market.
John, I agree that the twitboy whose spam started this thread deserved his
drubbing; I was simply taking mild exception to Paghat's
rather-too-inclusive:
>All stories put in ezines should be headed "Another failure gives up by
>putting his stinky writing here."
I mean, sure, gothic.net and Event-Horizon are rather a different kettle
of phosphors than what the naif who started this thread is promoting, but
they _are_ e-zines. Kelly Link was paid five cents a word for "The
Specialist's Hat," reprinted in two Best of the Year anthologies and is
now up for a major genre award for it -- I don't think she was exactly
throwing it away when she submitted it to Ellen Datlow.
Ian McDowell
Eve Rings
>"The Specialist's Hat" were sold for professional rates, and I'm pretty
>sure that the _Chiaroscuro_ webzine, where Eve's evocative and disturbing
>"The Cannibal's Daughter" appeared, is also a paying market.
Chi is a paying market, and I didn't even realize this when Brett Savory asked
me to be in the first issue -- what I did know is I found it very lovely to be
featured alongside such authors as Brian Hopkins and Phil Nutman --
paghat
> >You have got to be hoping not.
>
> How can you say that though? Some of the best things I've read have first
> appeared on the Internet.. Kelly Link's "The Specialist's Hat", Bel Wilson's
> "Strays", .. Event Horizon is always worth a read. Goth Net has some pretty
> good fiction. Hell, even my "The Cannibal's Daughter" has to be one of
the best
> things I've written and it appeared on the web.. 'Splain yourself, Lucy..
> "Hey neighbor, what happens when the speed is gone? We sped through seven
> straight blondes."
I'm afraid you, as an ezine fan & regular, have lowered your expectations
of the literature.
It's like watching a lot of television. After a while sitcoms actually
start to seem like humor.
But the only reason to criticize nonpaying ezines is because of the
off-chance that someone with a salable story will blow their chances of
ever selling it by wasting first-publication rights.
Hell, if putting your story in an ezine constitutes "publication" then
posting it to UseNet should be even BETTER. Because that ezine will be
archived only for so long as the owner of the website pays his phone &
server bills. But post it to UseNet and it gets archived to Deja News --
possibly for the next couple centuries.
So hell with ezines. Post all those classic stories right here! Makes at
least as much sense & probably more.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
ian...@mindspring.com (Ian McDowell) wrote:
> In article <19990914184218...@ng-fb1.aol.com>,
> xeven...@aol.com (Eve Rings ) wrote:
>
> >How can you say that though? Some of the best things I've read have first
> >appeared on the Internet.. Kelly Link's "The Specialist's Hat", Bel Wilson's
> >"Strays", .. Event Horizon is always worth a read. Goth Net has some pretty
> >good fiction.
>
> I'll second that, as I've recommended both stories before. "The
> Specialist's Hat" was, imho, the best horror story of 1998 and the best
> ghost story of the last decade. It deserved a Stoker award, or at least a
> nomination. It didn't get one, sadly, [clips]
Supposing the story's as good as you say it undoubtedly WOULD have have
garnered nominations if it had been published in any credible or
creditable environment. Just adds to the evidence that ezines are for
losers. Even if you DID by some miracle transcend the general lack of
quality, who'd read it but the ezine fans who hope they can get in the
ezine too? It's not where people quest for good fiction, so it's not a
community of writers & readers, it's a community of wannabes pretty much
separated from writers & readers. Publishing something "good" in that
environment would be like writing the next Wuthering Heights and having it
issued by Harlequin Romances. It would be invisible except to Harlequin
fans who probably would just be annoyed that it wasn't what they expected.
-paghat
>
> Ian McDowell
Eve Rings
>quality, who'd read it but the ezine fans who hope they can get in the
>ezine too?
Ack! Not so! I think a lot of people (Writers, editors, publishers) read the
good, quality, paying e-zines. I know they do!
Eve Rings
>I'm afraid you, as an ezine fan & regular, have lowered your expectations
>of the literature.
Wow... That's pretty hardcore, and a bit interesting. OK Paghat, I'm gonna
assume you have read the three stories we have been talking about (My little
examples of work I found that didn't suck)... what have you read on the
Internet you didn't hate? What do you think has been published in print this
year that you really liked?
paghat
ian...@mindspring.com (Ian McDowell) wrote:
> I mean, sure, gothic.net and Event-Horizon are rather a different kettle
> of phosphors than what the naif who started this thread is promoting, but
> they _are_ e-zines. Kelly Link was paid five cents a word for "The
> Specialist's Hat," reprinted in two Best of the Year anthologies and is
> now up for a major genre award for it -- I don't think she was exactly
> throwing it away when she submitted it to Ellen Datlow.
>
> Ian McDowell
My personal sentiment would be there are many exceptions but the rule
remains that to post your story in an ezine is an admission of failure.
Writers who hope for anything but illusory success that is in reality
failure should BEGIN with the assumption that appearing in an ezine is a
step backward rather than forward. Here are some exceptions:
1) Reviews & criticism; the net strikes me as a great place to discuss
the literature.
2) Promotional excerpts from printed books
3) Payment that values first-publication rights at least as highly as
the print markets (though even this is iffy). CONCEIVABLY there will come
a day when an ezine can pay MORE than print media. This will happen if the
material published on-line was so hugely in demand that advertising
revenues were extremely high. So far the only types of websites that
receive those numbers of hits are for sports scores & pornography. So to
date it has not been possible for ezines to establish a method of payment
that had at least a rough parallel to royalties. And that mass-demand will
never be achieved with amateurs' unsalable fiction.
4) Secondary sales or simultaneous sales to e-market for works that
have had their first-publication rights used in print media.
5) Works of a deliverately non-commercial but not essentially
amateurish nature.
6) Parodies & other unpretending goofy stuff.
7) Fan fiction -- i.e., unofficial Indiana Jones novels are tolerated
on the net because it's a nonprofit fannish thing -- whereas selling them
unlicensed as books would be a illegal commerce.
So it remains that individuals attempting to write stories of a commercial
genre nature who give them away for free to ezines or post them to their
own websites have mostly, in their own minds, embraced failure as success.
-paghat
gwco...@my-deja.com
I have to admit that I'm severely disturbed by this whole thread. I run
an ezine that pays a half cent a word and I equate what i do with the
efforts of small press print mags. I make that equation based on
financial criteria that has been set forth here and in countless other
forums. Small press print mags, at least the ones I'm familiar with,
generally pay in contributor copies-- usually one, seldom more than
two. Given the cover price of said mags, this amounts to no more than
ten dollars. I can't recall ever having paid a writer any less than ten
dollars for a story I accepted. So, what makes me the bad guy?
In fact, ezines should be embraced because they don't have the overhead
that print mags do and thus can keep more funds free to pay the authors
published in the zine, and this appears to be the biggest, if not only,
gripe that I have seen concerning ezines-- they don't pay.
Well, you're just looking at the wrong ones.
paghat
xeven...@aol.com (Eve Rings ) wrote:
> >
> >I'm afraid you, as an ezine fan & regular, have lowered your expectations
> >of the literature.
>
> Wow... That's pretty hardcore, and a bit interesting. OK Paghat, I'm gonna
> assume you have read the three stories we have been talking about (My little
> examples of work I found that didn't suck)... what have you read on the
> Internet you didn't hate?
I really love Terri Windling's website.
> What do you think has been published in print this
> year that you really liked?
I tend to prefer older stuff (& you would too if you were after quality
rather than quantity); some few of my favorite writers tend not to be
hacks & don't reliably publish something new in every year; & my reading
usually runs three years behind. So with your oddly limited time-frame in
mind it wouldn't be possible to make an esepcially long list of a lot of
great works. But off the top of my head works of merit (perhaps even
profound merit) available in the print-world having their first
publication in last twelve months (though perhaps I only read them that
recently but they came to me as brnad new books) might include:
Patrick McGrath's ASYLUM
Jack Cady's THE NIGHT WE BURIED ROAD DOG & Other Stories
Fred Chappell's LOOK BACK AT A GREEN ALLEY
Jonathon Carroll THE MARRIAGE OF STICKS
David Case BROTHERLY LOVE & Other Stories
Joyce Carol Oates' COLLECTOR OF HEARTS
That's all that comes to mind in a blink; I could go on infinitely if
you'd wanted to know what I regard as great works instead of what did I
like that was published in the last year. Either way I'm afraid by
contrast any "best of the net" list would look sadly like the "Least
Awful" Awards. The beste ezines to some extend are forming their own
community & there's bound to be good & bad within the limitations of that
community. But equal Fred Chappell? You & I either one should live so
long.
-paghat the ratgirl
jimS
busy with other things to worry about grouper gloves? If he is, let's keep
quiet about it. Noone need ever know the truth about his past, and even if
he is in the shad nowadays, I hear he's OK thank Cod.
--
Time is an illusion...lunchtime doubly so.
To reply, remove eggs from my email address.
...........................
<jpe...@cnw.com> wrote in message news:7ro7cf$d1v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Eve Rings
>I really love Terri Windling's website.
I have never seen. What's the address?
>> What do you think has been published in print this
>> year that you really liked?
>
>I tend to prefer older stuff (& you would too if you were after quality
>rather than quantity);
Bleh! I think there are plenty of good, new writers...
some few of my favorite writers tend not to be
>hacks & don't reliably publish something new in every year; & my reading
>usually runs three years behind. So with your oddly limited time-frame in
>mind it wouldn't be possible to make an esepcially long list of a lot of
>great works. But off the top of my head works of merit (perhaps even
>profound merit) available in the print-world having their first
>publication in last twelve months (though perhaps I only read them that
>recently but they came to me as brnad new books) might include:
>
>Patrick McGrath's ASYLUM
>Jack Cady's THE NIGHT WE BURIED ROAD DOG & Other Stories
>Fred Chappell's LOOK BACK AT A GREEN ALLEY
>Jonathon Carroll THE MARRIAGE OF STICKS
>David Case BROTHERLY LOVE & Other Stories
>Joyce Carol Oates' COLLECTOR OF HEARTS
I agree with the Carroll and Oates, but I need to read the rest.
>That's all that comes to mind in a blink; I could go on infinitely if
>you'd wanted to know what I regard as great works instead of what did I
>like that was published in the last year. Either way I'm afraid by
>contrast any "best of the net" list would look sadly like the "Least
>Awful" Awards. The beste ezines to some extend are forming their own
>community & there's bound to be good & bad within the limitations of that
>community. But equal Fred Chappell? You & I either one should live so
>long.
Well, that's a matter of taste. There is bound to be bad and good no matter
what format something is presented in, I just balk at genrealizations that all
of one thing or the other sucks.
V-X
II <jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply> wrote:
>No one's suggesting EKH is inhuman, merely cheap.
You know, John, most people here probably don't have paying writing day jobs,
like you. Most people have to pay dues to become writers or artists, or anything
else creative, as I'm sure you once had to, yourself. (And, unless you've sold
some fiction recently I'm not aware of, you're probably still paying dues, for
the work you're most passionate about. I did notice you're selling a "shareware
novel.")
I've gone through a couple of careers, first as an illustrator/cartoonist (that
one I call "career" with extreme license...never really did get out of the dues
paying stage), then as a software/web/user interface designer. Both worked
exactly the same way--you work for free, for people you get along with who are
similarly broke, then you work for dickheads for peanuts, and then you work for
more dickheads for peanuts, and if you're lucky, you end up someplace like where
you wanted to be in the first place. (In my case, the dickheads never really
stopped--not about money. I...walked away from an awful lot of money and
prestige to try to write full time, no brag, and if you want my old job, have at
it.)
I also run an online zine, one that's been on hiatus for a while. We don't pay
anybody. We don't make any fucking money. We get letters from people in the
movies we write about sometimes, and letters from professors saying they make
their classes read us, and lots of strokes like that, but...no money. We also
don't publish shit, and we don't publish crybabies who can't stand to have their
work edited. We have no shortage of people wanting to work with us when we come
back next month for free, good people, people who get paid to do the same thing
elsewhere, for two reasons:
1. They like what we're doing, and they want to do it, too, whether it pays or
not.
2. We promise deferred payments, should the magazine ever return a profit.
If you think that's weasley, John, that last bit, how do you think independant
films get made? Do you honestly think Robert Townsend financed Hollywood Shuffle
on credit cards, or El Mariachi only cost $7K or Blair Witch $20K? Christ,
no--those are total hype stories. El Mariachi, for instance, when you count
deferred cast, crew, processing and technical costs probably ran about $100K+,
and that was before it got picked up by a studio and they put $2 million into it
to make the "seven thousand dollar movie" you've seen, if you have. (Never seen
the original cut, but from accounts I've heard, it was a joke, pretty much.
Remind me to tell you the stories of Rodriquez' total dick sucking at Sundance
to achieve his "overnight miracle success," sometime.)
I apologize for coming on so strong, my first post to these groups, but I sit
around these days, all day, pounding on my keyboard and making nothing at all,
when I used to work in a similar biz to yours, John, and used to be able to just
run out and buy pretty much anything I wanted whenever I felt like it, without
worrying. (It gets old.) I subbed to these newsgroups looking for some kind of
community of similar Sufferers For Art (blech), and instead I find a bunch of
wankers who expect to be paid, first time out the gate. (Apologies to the
non-wankers out there.) Dream on, unless you've lucked into a gig writing porn
or romance crap or something. Nothing starts that way, nothing worth anything,
anyway. It never has, and it never will, and if you're sitting around waiting
for the "first big sale" before you get anything into print, you'll probably die
waiting. You certainly deserve to.
>It is not in fact simple to start a paying publication
Starting a nonpaying one ain't easy, either, never mind keeping it going once
the initial blush has worn off and you're still not making any money.
>No other business would even suggest making
>such a ridiculous deal.
Actually, they would. The world is full of hopeful startups of all types you can
work for for free or a promise, if you really want to.
--Robert
God's a proud thunder cloud, we are cartoon cats
With a fear that is Biblical under our hats
www.ungh.com
Nunya D. Bidness
If you boil them, you lose all the vitamins. May I suggest Shake-n-Bake?
And yes, I'm referring to ezine publishers...
Respex,
WiT
Wehr'z da scarez?
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:37:24 -0400, "Glenn Sasscer" <gsas...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Leslie wrote in message <37DDB7...@postmark.net>...
>>Glenn Sasscer wrote:
>>>
>>> Lucy Arlene Snyder wrote in message <7rjee5$75e$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>>> >Oh. My. God. EKH wants to start a non-paying webzine? [*Gasp*] How
>>> >*horrible*. My goodness, next thing you know EKH will be barbecuing
>>> >puppies and pulling the wings off flies.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Well, you need to pull the wings off before mixing with the barbecue sauce,
>>> or the wings get stuck between your teeth. And the puppies need to be
>>> fresh... none of that obediance training. It only makes the meat tough. And,
>>> while we're on the subject, mixing in the testicles of a non-paying publisher,
>>> the barbecue sauce turns rancid. If you like rancid, great, but if not, then
>>> definitely, writer beware!
>>
>>
>>But. As Marshall McLuhan said, we tend to look at things and invent
>>things by looking in a rear-view mirror. Thus: the "horseless
>>carriage." The majority of non-electronic "little" (literary) magazines
>>have never paid much beyond payment in copies. It's pretty predictible
>>that the e- versions would continue in that tradition.
>>
>>LH
>
>I'm sorry. I thought this was a horror writing newsgroup. While I agree,
>non-paying publishers are a horror to deal with all their own, I struggle
>to see what they have to do with eating puppies. Here we have a very
>juicy subject... yes, I meant to say that, and we spoil it by talking about
>non-paying publishers. It's enough to cause one to lose their appetite.
>
>Now that this issue has been talked to death, let's exchange recipes.
>By the way, has anyone figured out how to burn the hair off of them. I'm
>talking about the puppies, not the publishers. I'm getting tired of shaving
>the bastards (again, not the publishers) before throwing them on to boil.
>
>Oh, and as a hint to all, I tried putting them in the microwave live, but it
>made an awful mess. No, this time I was talking about the publisher.
>
>
If marriage as outlawed, then only outlaws would have inlaws.
Nunya D. Bidness
Well writ!
Please don't fry me and congratz on the elevation.
*mumblez about the abuse of power demi-gods display when 'made'*
Respex,
WiT
If marriage as outlawed, then only outlaws would have inlaws.
Ian McDowell
(paghat) wrote:
>The beste ezines to some extend are forming their own
>community & there's bound to be good & bad within the limitations of that
>community. But equal Fred Chappell? You & I either one should live so
>long.
Well, you and I and Jessica Amanda Salmonson (if you're not also her --
sorry, I'm unclear whether you guys share the same host body as well as
the same email address) will never equal Fred, no, but Kelly Link, whose
MFA advisor Fred once was (just like he was mine, some years before), may
have a shot at it. Fred certainly thinks so. He and I were discussing
Kelly's World Fantasy Award nomination last week, when I went to his
office to talk about his using my MORDRED'S CURSE as a text in his fantasy
class. When I told him about the World Fantasy ballot, he said that not
only did he think that Kelly was a better writer than anyone else
nominated this year, and then he thought for a moment, looked typically
dyspeptic and finally said (imagine this in Fred's mountain drawl) "heh,
she's better than _me_."
And I'm sure that Ellen Datlow, who is probably reading this, is bemused
by the claim that her e-zine is a haven for losers. While none of the
other stories published there have impressed me as strongly as Kelly's
"The Specialist's Hat" (like I said, imho the best horror story published
last year) or "The Girl Detective" (an unclassifiable combination of Nancy
Drew and the Twelve Dancing Princesses, and for my money the best fantasy
published so far this year), the other authors who have appeared there
have all been talented, veteran professionals from whom Ellen bought
solid, literate, entertaining and sometimes quite inspired work work --
the average issue of Event-Horizon may not be quite as strong as the
average issue Gardner puts together at Asimov's (sorry, Ellen -- you're
getting there), but it's better than the average F&SF (although, thank
God, that magazine _has_ risen above the doldrums of the Rusch era).
Gothic.net isn't as strong as Event-Horizon -- the fact that its a pure
horror 'zine limits it somewhat, as does the pay rate of 3 cents a word
rather than 5 cents (although in the currently depressed horror field, 3
cents is darn well considered a pro rate). Still, I'd say that it's as
good as DeathRealm was, or Weird Book, or Space and Time, and I generally
find it a better read than Carpe Noctem and a much less embarassing one
than Weird Tales. Darren and Seth haven't published any other stories as
good as Bel's "Strays" that I'm aware of (I've not read everything in the
archives, and only started paying real attention to the 'zine after I met
Bel and re-met Darren at World Horror last March), and the 'zine _still_
won't have even if Seth accepts my notorious turkey-fucking piece that
he's considering for the November issue. However, they've published some
good work by Dave Schow and other people, as well as the expected
mediocrities that you're going to find in any genre horror publication.
To be honest, until late last year I shared the rat girl's low opinion of
e-zines, and to some degree still do. Does most of what's published online
suck mightily? Yes it does. Are there a lot of talentless wannabe's out
there posting their godawful dreck on their vanity webpages? Yes, of
course. Was the spammer who started this thread either very naive or just
plain foolish? Probably both, says I. However, the fact remains that
there are at least two webzines regularly publishing good fiction and
paying pro rates for it, and a third one that has published some promising
work in its premier issue and has a word rate slightly better than what
the horror specialty press usually pays.
Ian McDowell
Ian McDowell
>I have to admit that I'm severely disturbed by this whole thread. I run
>an ezine that pays a half cent a word and I equate what i do with the
>efforts of small press print mags.
You pay more than most the literary magazine that Fred Chappell, mentioned
earlier in this thread, has published in, so that pretty much rules out
using pay rates as the only criterion.
Ian McDowell
Ian McDowell
(paghat) wrote:
>In article <iankmcd-1409...@pool-209-138-129-210.atln.grid.net>,
>ian...@mindspring.com (Ian McDowell) wrote:
>> I'll second that, as I've recommended both stories before. "The
>> Specialist's Hat" was, imho, the best horror story of 1998 and the best
>> ghost story of the last decade. It deserved a Stoker award, or at least a
>> nomination. It didn't get one, sadly, [clips]
>
>Supposing the story's as good as you say it undoubtedly WOULD have have
>garnered nominations if it had been published in any credible or
>creditable environment.
So? And what if no other "credible environment" wanted it? I may be
misremembering, but I'm under the impression that "The Specialist's Hat"
was rejected by REALMS OF FANTASY and possibly F&SF and ASIMOV'S (although
Gardner thinks very highly of Kelly's work and considers her one of the
most promising talents the genres have seen in a long time) -- I know
she'd been shopping it around for a bit, as I read the first draft of it
when it was part of her MFA thesis. She sold a batch of stories to places
like ASIMOV'S, REALMS OF FANTASY and CENTURY when she got out of Clarion,
then nothing for a year or two. I think that "The Specialist's Hat" was
her first sale since then, though I may be wrong.
The point is, she sent it to one of the most respected editors in the
genre, who was paying five cents a word. Where else, other than an
original anthology, can a relatively neophyte author get five cents a word
for a horror story? Remember, this is _horror_ we're talking about, not
SF. Said editor printed it and then chose it for her Year's Best. The
editor of a competing Year's Best also chose it and now it's up for a
World Fantasy Award.
For all that to happen, _somebody_ had to publish the story. The venue
that finally decided to do so, after it had been rejected elsewhere, is,
however Paghat may demur, a respected one (at least judging by what I her
from editors and publishers in the field), full of respected authors,
pays well, and is read by the people who buy stuff to reprint in
mass-market anthologies. In what way does offering the story to this
publication brand the author as a loser?
>Just adds to the evidence that ezines are for
>losers. Even if you DID by some miracle transcend the general lack of
>quality, who'd read it but the ezine fans who hope they can get in the
>ezine too?
Well, I would, for one thing. So would quite a few other people in the
SFWA and HWA, many of whom have credits far more substantial than my own.
No, I'm not going to look at _most_ e-zines, but I'm going to pay
attention to Event-Horizon and gothic-net and Chi from now on. That's
more than the number of print horror zines I currently read (although I
have high hopes for MIDNIGHT HOUR). And for the record, I've never had
anything published in any e-zine anywhere -- so far, all my credits have
been in print venues like ASIMOV'S, F&SF, LOVE IN VEIN, BORDERLANDS,
DEATHREALM and AMAZING STORIES, as well as the two novels from AvoNova.
I do, however, have an article and DVD reviews coming up at gothic.net,
and that 'zine and ERRATA are considering stories I sent them (no, I
wouldn't ordinarily submit to a non-paying market like ERRATA, but Rain is
a friend, so I thought wotthehell archy).
As I've already said, Steve Jones, Ellen Datlow and Gardner Dozois all
read at least certain e-zines when preparing their Best of the Year
anthologies. Not many of them, maybe, but a few, and the number of
phosphor publications that these editors peruse is apparently growing.
It's not where people quest for good fiction, so it's not a
>community of writers & readers, it's a community of wannabes pretty much
>separated from writers & readers. Publishing something "good" in that
>environment would be like writing the next Wuthering Heights and having it
>issued by Harlequin Romances. It would be invisible except to Harlequin
>fans who probably would just be annoyed that it wasn't what they expected.
Except that certain stories publshed in that environment clearly HAVEN'T
been invisible . Kelly's story is reprinted and award-nominated. Bel's
has been earning raves from folks like me, Vince Harper, Mike Marano and
other pros, and will likely have a hefty amount of Stoker rec's in the
next HWA newsletter. This rather knocks that above argument into a cocked
hat.
Ian McDowell, all of whose own submissions to Event-Horizon have been
rejected (although I am in an upcoming Datlow anthology from Tor)
Nunya D. Bidness
Nonono, not "grouper gloves"!
"Mermits"! You know, those mermaids can be rather slippery, and once you _do_ catch one, you'll be glad you had protection!
*wipez hiz brow*
Why, I remember when me and my mates caught that little filly off the coast of...boy am I parched! I can barely spin a yarn!
*lix hiz snout, sitz on a barstool*
Respex,
WiT (who once self-published a story on the Web, much to his chagrin).
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:26:31 +0100, "jimS" <gri...@eggstesco.net> wrote:
>I agree, but what's all this about Herman's Mermits? Surely the lad is too
>busy with other things to worry about grouper gloves? If he is, let's keep
>quiet about it. Noone need ever know the truth about his past, and even if
>he is in the shad nowadays, I hear he's OK thank Cod.
>
>
>--
>Time is an illusion...lunchtime doubly so.
>
>To reply, remove eggs from my email address.
>...........................
>
>
><jpe...@cnw.com> wrote in message news:7ro7cf$d1v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Gerald Clough
It seems to me, that much of this issue turns on the Internet as a
medium that requires little but time to establish a presence. The
distinction between what is done in hope of profit, as a business in
other words, and what is done for amusement is blurred. (I include
print literary journals in the "business" end because in print that
commonly refers to a periodical that requires an overhead beyond time.
Internet e-zines/journals are not the same thing, unless one considers a
photocopied collection of works passed around to be a literary
journal. Not all will agree.)
It's quite natural to want the best stuff one can obtain for even a Web
journal that is created out of a purely personal desire to do it, rather
than a perception of a need or a hope of turning a dollar. But I think
that when one puts up a site that is admittedly for work that is not
believed to merit paid publication and, at the same time, hails the site
as a benefit to authors by avoiding the hassles of traditional
publication, it can sound like inviting the apprentice to come work on a
public project to avoid the hassles of actual employment.
Perhaps the analogy is poor, but how would the community of graphic
artists respond to an announcement that an individual had solicited work
to be given gratis and placed in their front yard and claimed it
represented a benefit in that the artists would avoid the hassle of
being accepted by a gallery.
This should not be taken as criticism of the site in question or of the
many similar sites that are labors of love. This site and many others
are technically well executed. But they are either for fun or they are
for money, and if they are for fun, they had better have a sense of
humor and an awareness that it is very long odds that they will become
any more than than the electronic equivalent of photocopied pages passed
around the coffee shops and that they offer no relief from hassles of
commercial publication, since traditional publications wasn't going to
happen anyway.
They must also have taken a long look around the 'net and recognize that
they must set themselves firmly apart if they are not to be taken as one
more of the sites that are asking for free work in order to attract
traffic for banner ad exposure. And they had better be prepared to let
some flack just roll off when they play in a venue (WWW) where scams are
everywhere.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clo...@Texas.Net
"Nothing has any value unless you know you can give it up."
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Michael Scalzi II
unmitigated gall to say:
>On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:46:39 -0400, in alt.creative.writing, John Michael Scalzi
>II <jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply> wrote:
>
>>No one's suggesting EKH is inhuman, merely cheap.
>
>You know, John, most people here probably don't have paying writing day jobs,
>like you. Most people have to pay dues to become writers or artists, or anything
>else creative, as I'm sure you once had to, yourself. (And, unless you've sold
>some fiction recently I'm not aware of, you're probably still paying dues, for
>the work you're most passionate about. I did notice you're selling a "shareware
>novel.")
(FYI, Robert, I'm responding to this post in misc.writing, which I
suspect is a somewhat more "professional" group than ACW, into which
this discussion has also been cross-posted.)
Now, then.
I don't know that I would call "Agent to the Stars" (the shareware
novel in question) an accurate example of dues-paying, since I
willfully placed it on the 'Net as an experiment to see whether or not
I could actually make any money doing it that way (disclosure: of
course I sent it in to some regular publishers first, where it was
rejected). The answer: You can, just not a whole lot. The next novel
will definitely be going the traditional route.
(Incidentially, my full, unexpurgated rationale for publishing to
novel online is available for your rationalization pleasure at
http://scalzi.com/agent/impatient.html)
Be that as it may, while I definitely did my share of dues-paying, I
disagree strongly that paying one's dues means that one cannot also
get paid, one way or another. It's rather a point of pride for me that
I've never *not* been compensated for my writing work, unless it was
*my* choice not to be paid -- this from the time I wrote in my college
newspaper (where I did music reviews in exchange for CDs), right up
through today. I have done work for free, but *never* under the guise
of "dues-paying" -- I'd do it for fun, or as a favor to a friend.
>I've gone through a couple of careers, first as an illustrator/cartoonist (that
>one I call "career" with extreme license...never really did get out of the dues
>paying stage), then as a software/web/user interface designer. Both worked
>exactly the same way--you work for free, for people you get along with who are
>similarly broke, then you work for dickheads for peanuts, and then you work for
>more dickheads for peanuts, and if you're lucky, you end up someplace like where
>you wanted to be in the first place. (In my case, the dickheads never really
>stopped--not about money. I...walked away from an awful lot of money and
>prestige to try to write full time, no brag, and if you want my old job, have at
>it.)
Well, and again, that's your perspective, and your own choices.
However, personally, I've found it just as managable to work and get
paid as it is to work for free. And, frankly, if one must work for
dickheads (and I have), one damn well better get paid, and something
more than peanuts.
Now, I'm willing to concede in my particular case that I've been
luckier than the average bear in a lot of things about my writing
career. However, in today's current economic situation, there's *no*
reason, provided a certain level of competence, one can't pay one's
dues and earn a reasonable salary doing so. Where I live, there's
currently a 1.9% unemployment rate, and anyone with a sliver of
competency is being snapped up to work. This boat-lifting includes
writing and editing positions.
Bottom line: You can get paid as easily as not. That being the case,
why not get paid.
>I also run an online zine, one that's been on hiatus for a while. We don't pay
>anybody. We don't make any fucking money. We get letters from people in the
>movies we write about sometimes, and letters from professors saying they make
>their classes read us, and lots of strokes like that, but...no money. We also
>don't publish shit, and we don't publish crybabies who can't stand to have their
>work edited. We have no shortage of people wanting to work with us when we come
>back next month for free, good people, people who get paid to do the same thing
>elsewhere, for two reasons:
>
>1. They like what we're doing, and they want to do it, too, whether it pays or
>not.
>
>2. We promise deferred payments, should the magazine ever return a profit.
Well, my position on online 'zines is pretty well outlined in my
E-Zine Screed, available at my Web site
(http://www.scalzi.com/john/ezine.htm), and it is: If you "publish" an
online 'zine, and you do it for love, not money, fine by me. I don't
have any problems with that.
But anything that's begun with the *intent* of making money off of
other people's work, whether right then or in the future, well, that's
another matter. It's a business venture, and in my book, if you're
going to have a business, you have to pay the expenses such a business
incurrs; in the case of a "magazine," that would include the writing.
Online 'zine publishers pay for *other* expenses (for example, the
cost of Web hosting) without qualm; I would suggest that the writing
element of an online 'zine is at least equally important.
In the case of your particular 'zine, Robert, it sounds like you do
*intend* to make a profit at some point, so, yes, I'd prefer you paid
your contributors. I'd be a lot more comfortable with it if it were
strictly amateur (using the older sense of the term, and not the
current definition).
Would I contribute to it? I might, but not because of any other reason
than that you and I have known each other for several years. Were you
just another schmoe with a Web site, I'd ask for cash on the
barrelhead. I don't feel hypocritical making such a distinction -- one
does things for people they know that they wouldn't otherwise do.
>If you think that's weasley, John, that last bit, how do you think independant
>films get made? Do you honestly think Robert Townsend financed Hollywood Shuffle
>on credit cards, or El Mariachi only cost $7K or Blair Witch $20K? Christ,
>no--those are total hype stories. El Mariachi, for instance, when you count
>deferred cast, crew, processing and technical costs probably ran about $100K+,
>and that was before it got picked up by a studio and they put $2 million into it
>to make the "seven thousand dollar movie" you've seen, if you have. (Never seen
>the original cut, but from accounts I've heard, it was a joke, pretty much.
>Remind me to tell you the stories of Rodriquez' total dick sucking at Sundance
>to achieve his "overnight miracle success," sometime.)
Since I've interviewed Rodruiguez a couple of times, I'll pass on
that, thanks. (In the case of "El Mariachi," by the way, the
after-pickup costs indeed ran to a couple of million -- primarily to
clean up the soundtrack, and then, of course, to market it).
More to your point, however, if Townsend, Rodruigez et al didn't
bother paying their crews, then I would obviously have a problem with
that as well. One's desperation to make it in a particular business
does not give one license to exploit others on the way there (one
suspects that many of the crew involved in these productions were
friends and family, who as I've mentioned belong in a special class).
In any event, the argument of "everybody does it" doesn't mean it's
*right.*
My bottom line: Everyone who works, gets paid. How *much* one gets
paid is another matter entirely. I wouldn't expect a 'zine to pay
anything close to what an established magazine pays; I wouldn't expect
the gaffer on an independent film to get paid what the gaffer on "The
Phantom Menace" got paid. But I do expect they'd get paid.
>I apologize for coming on so strong, my first post to these groups, but I sit
>around these days, all day, pounding on my keyboard and making nothing at all,
>when I used to work in a similar biz to yours, John, and used to be able to just
>run out and buy pretty much anything I wanted whenever I felt like it, without
>worrying. (It gets old.) I subbed to these newsgroups looking for some kind of
>community of similar Sufferers For Art (blech), and instead I find a bunch of
>wankers who expect to be paid, first time out the gate. (Apologies to the
>non-wankers out there.) Dream on, unless you've lucked into a gig writing porn
>or romance crap or something. Nothing starts that way, nothing worth anything,
>anyway. It never has, and it never will, and if you're sitting around waiting
>for the "first big sale" before you get anything into print, you'll probably die
>waiting. You certainly deserve to.
Well, *I* was compensated right out of the gate, and never stopped
getting compensated. I didn't get compensated *much* (and this is
where you and I agree on something -- the guy expecting to make a huge
amount of money off his first piece of work is probably going to be
sorely disappointed), but I did get compensated. I think the fact that
writers are willing to accept the highly dubious privlege of
"exposure" on Web 'zines as payment as something that has to do with
writers' cravings for recognition overriding their common sense; I
wouldn't do it myself, but hey, it's *their* writing. However, I think
that "publishers" who take advantage of a writer's weakness in this
regard are another matter entirely.
Making a bow to the particular newsgroup in which you found this
posting, Robert, I think that payment for "creative" work is even
easier to make happen than in other fields, because the pay for
creative writing is so regrettably low that it doesn't take much to
cough up a payment that's in line with what creative work is going
for, even in print markets.
For example, poets are paid so poorly for their work that if you paid
just $5 for a poem, you'd be comfortably within the range of what
poems are fetching in the nation's "little" or "literary" magazines.
Think about *that* -- and think about how popular you'd be if you paid
$10 a poem. You could print a poem every weekday of the month for that
price and still only be out $250 at most -- and yet become one of the
pre-eminent poetry sites on the Web (provided you have decent taste in
poetry). It's scary, really.
>>It is not in fact simple to start a paying publication
>
>Starting a nonpaying one ain't easy, either, never mind keeping it going once
>the initial blush has worn off and you're still not making any money.
>
>>No other business would even suggest making
>>such a ridiculous deal.
>
>Actually, they would. The world is full of hopeful startups of all types you can
>work for for free or a promise, if you really want to.
The world is also full of places where you can work and get paid. The
question is, which do you want to do.
--
John Scalzi, Freelance Troublemaker
www.scalzi.com
"You are the perfect example of a man too lazy to fail."
-- The Goddess Kristine Blauser Scalzi
Reed Andrus
Gerald Clough wrote:
> This should not be taken as criticism of the site in question or of the
> many similar sites that are labors of love. This site and many others
> are technically well executed. But they are either for fun or they are
> for money, and if they are for fun, they had better have a sense of
> humor and an awareness that it is very long odds that they will become
> any more than than the electronic equivalent of photocopied pages passed
> around the coffee shops and that they offer no relief from hassles of
> commercial publication, since traditional publications wasn't going to
> happen anyway.
Hi Gerald!
This was a well-thought, nicely-stated post. Basically what you have
just described is the electronic equivalent of the old SF fanzine --
mimeographed or xeroxed or typeset, with or without graphics, relying on
a body of contributors who could be near-professional at times, but
mostly were/are just fans and amateurs writing to see their names in
print for the egoboo. I can buy that analogy, and in retrospect it's
kinda funny that their electronic equivalent would generate so much
negative reaction.
I published one of those zines for a brief period many years ago. The
keys to keeping it alive was contribution and budget -- the former was
hardest to generate but once a mailing list was established, budget
drove the process. I published a short story from one writer who later
found a paying home for the same piece. When I called him for not giving
my zine credit, he threw up his hands and told me he wouldn't have
received as much (if any) payment for the piece had he been that honest.
He asked for my concurrence and I said whatthell, but it still smarted a
bit. That author has gone on to produce several well-received steampunk
story collections, and my fanzine has been dead and forgotten for over
25 years.
The difference of course is that electronic solicitation of anything, be
it money for get-rich-quick schemes, or simple contributions to an
electronic fanzine, has been automatically labeled as spam. Guilt by
association regardless of motive. It's an interesting psychodynamic of
our computerized society and post-Reagonomics mentality -- since
everyone is after the almighty buck, everyone wants to know how they can
profit from something. If the fanzine is a freebie (and most of them
were and are), there is something automatically wrong with the scenario.
Funny thing is, there are still fanzines out there in the printed media
world. Doubt if they incur the vitriol that has been spread about over
the Internet.
Thanks again for a thoughtful post.
Best regards,
... Reed
jimS
Far as I recalled some of Noone's groupers when he was a Hoiman were a tad
fishy-net odoured. And if I was to catch some similar I'd want more than
just Mermits! Love on a different scale.
Nevertheless,
1. Of all the fishes in the sea, the mermaid is the one for me.
2. Of all the fishes in the oggin, the mermaid is the best for snoggin.
Careful, the lamps are beginning to swing.
Nice one
Jim
"Avast behind" (said Large John Saliva the bloody thursday piecrust
mumbling through the underpants)
Nunya D. Bidness <alphawehr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37e06231....@news.earthlink.net...
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> Nonono, not "grouper gloves"!
> "Mermits"! You know, those mermaids can be rather slippery, and once you
_do_ catch one, you'll be glad you had protection!
> *wipez hiz brow*
> Why, I remember when me and my mates caught that little filly off the
coast of...boy am I parched! I can barely spin a yarn!
> *lix hiz snout, sitz on a barstool*
>
> Respex,
>
> WiT (who once self-published a story on the Web, much to his chagrin).
>
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:26:31 +0100, "jimS" <gri...@eggstesco.net> wrote:
>
> >I agree, but what's all this about Herman's Mermits? Surely the lad is
too
> >busy with other things to worry about grouper gloves? If he is, let's
keep
> >quiet about it. Noone need ever know the truth about his past, and even
if
> >he is in the shad nowadays, I hear he's OK thank Cod.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Time is an illusion...lunchtime doubly so.
> >
> >To reply, remove eggs from my email address.
> >...........................
> >
> >
> ><jpe...@cnw.com> wrote in message news:7ro7cf$d1v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Aeric Eynan
It's pretty much what I intended to say. It is indeed very nice that you can
make money by assembling an anthology. But you say you prefer good work to
crap. Me too! but here you have to derfine crap! I don't know american
literature that well, and you probably don't know german literature, so I
take a much discussed movie you probably know: Pulp fiction. Work of art or
crap???? I've seen it 3 times, and I still haven't decided. But what I know
is that if I had had to assemble an anthology, I wouldn't have taken it in.
Who knows if something like this movie would be successful...... Too risky.
So if everybody pursued the same goals as you do, there wouldn't be any
evolution in literature. I'm sure that while you were choosing your stories
you looked at them from two different perspectives. 1) Do I like it and 2)
might the readers like it. On the net the second filter is just left away,
and I agree with you that this allows a lot of crap to see the light of the
day, but it allows the same with some "uncut diamonds", to stories which
only a very small "target group" (Correct expression in English??) is
interested in.
Of course you wouldn't like to look back at your stories of twenty years ago
if they were of bad quality. But here you just have to rely on the
"professionality" of the author (even the hobby authors), and by the way:
The web is anonymous, so how should anyone find out it was you who wrote
crap! Final note: Sometimes crap is comercially very sucessful. See: John
Grisham
I hope your opinion doesn't arise from the fear the the net might make it
impossible to get money for good work. This is never going to happen.
Thanks for reading my posts!
Stefan
<jpe...@cnw.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 7ro7cf$d1v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
seb phillips
that's a pretty thoughtful post from you, too.
> Funny thing is, there are still fanzines out there in the printed media
> world. Doubt if they incur the vitriol that has been spread about over
> the Internet.
I would agree.
The fact is, there used to be a hell of a lot of work involved in creating a
'paper' based zine (I'm sure there still is) and it was never a paying
proposition. More than that, the editor had to hack round specialist shops
and conventions to try and build up the list. If he did a good job, the zine
might actually reach a decent size public. People didn't mind so much not
being paid because they knew the editor was working himself to death. In the
UK, SF writers still fall over themselves to get into Interzone, even though
you can't really buy a decent meal for what they pay. No one minds becase a)
most UK fans read it and b) everyone knows how hard Dave Pringle had to work
to get the magazine to the position it is now.
I think what hacks off writers about these E-zine folks is that any fool can
put up a web page, and a lot of fools are doing it. The whole market is
being swamped with badly constructed, readerless pages, whose editors think
they are doing writers a favour by providing these dead end markets, whilst
all they are really doing is growing their own ego's somewhat. And then
they cap it all by suggesting that one day, if we all work hard enough, they
might even be able to take the site commercial and pay people a few pennies.
These people are just playing games, which is offensive to folks who've
invested maybe ten years in learning their craft. And, I would say, it
should be even more offensive to people who run good e-zines.
Some time, I'd like to see an ezine editor pitch to prospective authors on
the basis of the work he's doing to get the site established. If someone
could gaurentee me that everyone who subscribes to this newsgroup(including
Paghat!) would visit that site and read my work, I know I'd be happy to
forgo the $10 that I might get from another site. But - as someone who's day
job includes around building traffic to a web site - I can tell you that it
doesn't happen unless you work just as hard as the editor scumbling around
specialist bookshops with a bag of zenes under his arm.
Just a few thoughts.
seb phillips
Chris Bolton
paghat wrote in message <7rodl8$8m3$0...@199.201.191.2>...
>
>My personal sentiment would be there are many exceptions but the rule
>remains that to post your story in an ezine is an admission of failure.
>Writers who hope for anything but illusory success that is in reality
>failure should BEGIN with the assumption that appearing in an ezine is a
>step backward rather than forward. Here are some exceptions:
>
> 1) Reviews & criticism; the net strikes me as a great place to discuss
>the literature.
*whew!* Slipped in under the radar...
Chris A. Bolton
www.24framespersecond.com
Read Planchette every week at http://skinandbones.net/darkdeeds/
V-X
Scalzi II <jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 20:46:27 -0700, V-X <v...@ungh.com> had the
>unmitigated gall to say:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:46:39 -0400, in alt.creative.writing, John Michael Scalzi
>>II <jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply> wrote:
>>
>>>No one's suggesting EKH is inhuman, merely cheap.
>>
>>You know, John, most people here probably don't have paying writing day jobs,
>>like you. Most people have to pay dues to become writers or artists, or anything
>>else creative, as I'm sure you once had to, yourself. (And, unless you've sold
>>some fiction recently I'm not aware of, you're probably still paying dues, for
>>the work you're most passionate about. I did notice you're selling a "shareware
>>novel.")
>
>(FYI, Robert, I'm responding to this post in misc.writing, which I
>suspect is a somewhat more "professional" group than ACW, into which
>this discussion has also been cross-posted.)
Actually, I picked it up in rec.arts.horror.written. Guess what I'm writing?
>Now, then.
>
>I don't know that I would call "Agent to the Stars" (the shareware
>novel in question) an accurate example of dues-paying
Dude, I think two years, three agents and three publishers, in the middle of
having a kid counts as "dues paying," no matter what. Don't sell yourself short.
>(Incidentially, my full, unexpurgated rationale for publishing to
>novel online is available for your rationalization pleasure at
>http://scalzi.com/agent/impatient.html)
I read it. I read half the book, too. I'll send you a dollar when I'm done.
>Be that as it may, while I definitely did my share of dues-paying, I
>disagree strongly that paying one's dues means that one cannot also
>get paid, one way or another.
Not "cannot." It's what you choose to do with your work. Unless you're wildly
connected and/or a frigging genius, the chances of your being able to do "the
work you really want to do" for money, right off the bat, are somewhere down
below zero. Sure, it might happen. You might win the lottery, too, and Jesus
might come back, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
> It's rather a point of pride for me that
>I've never *not* been compensated for my writing work, unless it was
>*my* choice not to be paid -- this from the time I wrote in my college
>newspaper (where I did music reviews in exchange for CDs), right up
>through today. I have done work for free, but *never* under the guise
>of "dues-paying" -- I'd do it for fun, or as a favor to a friend.
Well...I have. A lot. I expect to do even more of it with the writing before I
start making money, because I have a little time, right now, to be focused on
what I seriously want to do. So that's all I'm doing. If it were a point of
pride to me to get paid, as it seems to be for you, I suppose I could reinvent
myself professionally as a copy writer or bust my head trying to get a newspaper
gig. (Snort. Yeah, newspapers are just dying for 32-year-old corporate dropouts
who decided they want to be writers. ) I'd be in exactly the same place I've
been all along: day jobs that are "almost there," just close enough to be
totally unsatisfying and suck my creative energy, so the last thing I want to do
when I get home is create more.
Frankly, I'd rather go back to construction or one of my other early life
default shit jobs. At least you don't take those home with you.
>Well, and again, that's your perspective, and your own choices.
>However, personally, I've found it just as managable to work and get
>paid as it is to work for free. And, frankly, if one must work for
>dickheads (and I have), one damn well better get paid, and something
>more than peanuts.
It's a matter of priorities, and you've known me long enough, John, that you
shouldn't put some Young Socialists of America slant on what I'm about to say.
Sometimes, it comes down to a choice between getting paid and doing what you
want. Most of the time, the choice is made for you. I try very hard, especially
these days, to bring the scales back to "what I want" rather than "getting
paid."
>Now, I'm willing to concede in my particular case that I've been
>luckier than the average bear in a lot of things about my writing
>career.
I wasn't saying that...on reread, the opening of my post seems to attack you as
some kind of "silver spoon" baby or something...sorry, didn't mean that. If
you've been "lucky," good for you. If you've kicked ass trying to get where you
are, even better.
>However, in today's current economic situation, there's *no*
>reason, provided a certain level of competence, one can't pay one's
>dues and earn a reasonable salary doing so.
Really? Okay, John, how do you currently make "a reasonable salary" writing
science fiction?
>Where I live, there's
>currently a 1.9% unemployment rate, and anyone with a sliver of
>competency is being snapped up to work. This boat-lifting includes
>writing and editing positions.
You mean jobs where you get to sit around all day and write whatever you want?
Damn, John, I'm moving back east, 'cause we ain't got no jobs like that out
here.
Fuck, if there are jobs like that, I shoulda started writing more seriously a
long time ago.
>Bottom line: You can get paid as easily as not.
The ladies down the block get paid to fuck. They get paid okay, and they fuck a
lot. Would you recommend I do that, if I told you my love life wasn't going so
well?
>Well, my position on online 'zines is pretty well outlined in my
>E-Zine Screed, available at my Web site
>(http://www.scalzi.com/john/ezine.htm), and it is: If you "publish" an
>online 'zine, and you do it for love, not money, fine by me. I don't
>have any problems with that.
>
>But anything that's begun with the *intent* of making money off of
>other people's work, whether right then or in the future, well, that's
>another matter.
Not really. I "intend" to possibly make money someday from the mag. Then again,
I'm perfectly happy if it never does. I also "intend" to pay writers, should the
mag ever make money. Since all we're talking about, here, is intent, everybody's
getting paid exactly what they should, and everybody's getting paid the same,
even in your rather perplexing philosophical model.
>It's a business venture, and in my book, if you're
>going to have a business, you have to pay the expenses such a business
>incurrs; in the case of a "magazine," that would include the writing.
>Online 'zine publishers pay for *other* expenses (for example, the
>cost of Web hosting)
John, the cost of web hosting is somewhere areound "dick." You admit as much in
your "Dr. Impatient" piece. People who run photocopied zines pay more to publish
their work than I do, and they don't pay, either, for the most part.
>In the case of your particular 'zine, Robert, it sounds like you do
>*intend* to make a profit at some point, so, yes, I'd prefer you paid
>your contributors. I'd be a lot more comfortable with it if it were
>strictly amateur (using the older sense of the term, and not the
>current definition).
Uh...John. Not to sound nasty or anything, but I don't give a shit what you're
"comfortable" with. As long as I'm happy, and my editor's happy, and the writers
are happy, it's all good. I'd pass your concern on to them, but they wouldn't
care, either.
>More to your point, however, if Townsend, Rodruigez et al didn't
>bother paying their crews, then I would obviously have a problem with
>that as well.
Well, they didn't. Indie films don't, until they get picked up for distribution,
which is, again, a lottery-level crapshoot. For all those "success stories"
you've heard, there are a hundred film crews and casts who will never, ever get
paid their deferred salaries, because the film will never sell.
>One's desperation to make it in a particular business
>does not give one license to exploit others on the way there (one
>suspects that many of the crew involved in these productions were
>friends and family, who as I've mentioned belong in a special class).
Nope. Real people, usually with real contracts that say "You'll get paid if and
when the movie sells." That's just the way it goes--otherwise there would be no
independent film. Movies just plain cost too much...you could save your whole
life, and not come up with the money it really takes to make a movie. There is
no way in hell you'll ever get a financial institution to back an indie film,
period.
I know people, John, who are trying to make little "I paid for it myself"
movies--I've known lots of them.
Most of them are animators, and their shit takes *years* to get done. My
neighbor across the street isn't a dork, isn't a poseur, is a pretty serious
guy, and he's been working on a three-minute stop motion for the past year or
two. Three minutes, John. He's not getting paid for that, and frankly, the
chances that anybody who isn't his mom or girlfriend will ever see it are...just
a joke.
Anybody who isn't an animator needs a crew, and anybody who isn't making
documentaries needs a cast. Your costs balloon, right off the bat, to somewhere
in the ballpark of $150K, and that's if you pay your people shit and you've got
a bare-bones crew and only a handful of paid actors. Don't even get me started
on where fucking insurance pushes that, and we're still not talking about film,
or processing, or equipment, or food, or blah, blah, blah...
If there's no money, you have to find people who will do it for love. Period.
>In any event, the argument of "everybody does it" doesn't mean it's
>*right.*
That's not what I said, John, and I think you know that.
>My bottom line: Everyone who works, gets paid.
I'm sure the ladies down the street would agree.
>How *much* one gets
>paid is another matter entirely. I wouldn't expect a 'zine to pay
>anything close to what an established magazine pays; I wouldn't expect
>the gaffer on an independent film to get paid what the gaffer on "The
>Phantom Menace" got paid. But I do expect they'd get paid.
Well, they usually don't. If they do, it's usually squat, I mean, like not even
enough to pay your rent for a month.
>>Actually, they would. The world is full of hopeful startups of all types you can
>>work for for free or a promise, if you really want to.
>
>The world is also full of places where you can work and get paid. The
>question is, which do you want to do.
I think I already answered that, but: I got paid. It wasn't worth the tradeoff.
paghat
> I have to admit that I'm severely disturbed by this whole thread. I run
> an ezine that pays a half cent a word and I equate what i do with the
> efforts of small press print mags. I make that equation based on
> financial criteria that has been set forth here and in countless other
> forums. Small press print mags, at least the ones I'm familiar with,
> generally pay in contributor copies--
NONE are taken seriously if they pay less than a penny-a-word, the amount
usually regarded as "token" & takes into consideration that the editors
aren't making their money back.
> usually one, seldom more than
> two. Given the cover price of said mags, this amounts to no more than
> ten dollars.
I've gotten as many as five copies never less than two. One copy for a
poem. That in addition to the minimum penny-a-word.
> I can't recall ever having paid a writer any less than ten
> dollars for a story I accepted.
It's not enough that any writer of merit will take you seriously but it's
a start & it puts you ahead of the complete ripoff editors who make every
excuse under the sun to pay every debt except to their contributors.
> So, what makes me the bad guy?
> In fact, ezines should be embraced because they don't have the overhead
> that print mags do and thus can keep more funds free to pay the authors
> published in the zine, and this appears to be the biggest, if not only,
> gripe that I have seen concerning ezines-- they don't pay.
> Well, you're just looking at the wrong ones.
Comparing ezines on any level with print media is rather foolish & a
TERRIBLE replacement for them because they don't actually exist, do they?
If you archive back issues your magazine will exist for as long as you pay
your server to give it space on the web. Then it's gone. Whereas real
magazines are somewhat permanent & many people do collect them & the older
they get the more valuable they get. Your ezine has no intrinsic value now
or in the future. It's ephemera & to regard it as a replacement for a
magazine because it's cheaper is like throwing away sculpture because you
can shape artworks out of soap bubbles that melt away to nothing or you
can mold dogshit & keep it around until it gets moldy instead of molded.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
ian...@mindspring.com (Ian McDowell) wrote:
> In article <7robra$16a$2...@199.201.191.2>, pag...@my-dejaUNSPAMO.com
> (paghat) wrote:
>
[clips]
> >
> >Supposing the story's as good as you say it undoubtedly WOULD have have
> >garnered nominations if it had been published in any credible or
> >creditable environment.
>
> So? And what if no other "credible environment" wanted it?
If the author believes in a story, patience is warranted. It took me years
to place "Hode of the High Place" because Terry Carr could not sell the
anthology it was first to appear in & then he died, & editors like Terri
Windling said it was a great story but she hoped to forget it as soon as
possible it was so upsetting so instead I sold her something Romantic
rather than grotesque. I could've given it away to some no-account editor
easy as could be, but I believed in it. I would never stoop to wasting
rights on an ezine or mimeograph fanzine, & finally it was appreciated by
an editor for Allen & Unwin.
Patience does help.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
ian...@mindspring.com (Ian McDowell) wrote:
[clips]
>
> And I'm sure that Ellen Datlow, who is probably reading this, is bemused
> by the claim that her e-zine is a haven for losers.
Since I listed seven "exceptions" to that rule-of-thumb & Ellen's ezine
embraces about four of those exceptions your method of argument is for
shit & I'm surprised at you. Whe she asked me to write a column for it the
only reason I did not do so was that I did not feel I like the modern
aspects of commercial horror sufficiently to want to work hard on any
articles about same, but I was honored she wanted me.
-paghat athe ratgirl
[bunch of shit clipped]
>
> Ian McDowell
Ian McDowell
I was in Jr. High and avidly read Ted White's AMAZING and FANTASTIC.
The knowledge of her identity certainly colors my response to her advice
on how to manage one's reputation, have a viable career, and enjoy the
respect of one's peers.
Ian McDowell (who actually enjoyed TOMOE GOZEN)
Ian McDowell
<s...@opengate-no-spa-m.co.uk> wrote:
>I think what hacks off writers about these E-zine folks is that any fool can
>put up a web page, and a lot of fools are doing it. The whole market is
>being swamped with badly constructed, readerless pages, whose editors think
>they are doing writers a favour by providing these dead end markets, whilst
>all they are really doing is growing their own ego's somewhat. And then
>they cap it all by suggesting that one day, if we all work hard enough, they
>might even be able to take the site commercial and pay people a few pennies.
>These people are just playing games, which is offensive to folks who've
>invested maybe ten years in learning their craft.
I hope my disagreement with Paghat (and rather more amable disagreement
with John, if he and I can even be said to disagree) doesn't give anyone
the idea that I'm an uncritical champion of the average e-zine. There's
nothing in the above statement that I'd disagree with.
Ian McDowell
Dan Clore
Ezines can be released on disc as well as the Web. I was in one that was
supposed to collect each year's issues on a CD at the end of the year,
but folded before that ever happened. So at least the possibility exists
that an ezine need not be ephemeral....
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
John Michael Scalzi II
unmitigated gall to say:
>>(FYI, Robert, I'm responding to this post in misc.writing, which I
>>suspect is a somewhat more "professional" group than ACW, into which
>>this discussion has also been cross-posted.)
>
>Actually, I picked it up in rec.arts.horror.written. Guess what I'm writing?
Something better than the last couple of Stephen Kings, I hope.
>>I don't know that I would call "Agent to the Stars" (the shareware
>>novel in question) an accurate example of dues-paying
>
>Dude, I think two years, three agents and three publishers, in the middle of
>having a kid counts as "dues paying," no matter what. Don't sell yourself short.
Thanks, Robert. But it's not humility talking (as well you know). I
wrote "Agent" specifically to see if I could write a novel; I
literally had no expectations from it from there. Which is why I could
put it up on the Web site with a minimum of effort towards the
old-fashioned print press. The payoff in that one *was* the writing,
not the selling. The next novel, trust me, will have the payoff as the
selling.
>>Be that as it may, while I definitely did my share of dues-paying, I
>>disagree strongly that paying one's dues means that one cannot also
>>get paid, one way or another.
>
>Not "cannot." It's what you choose to do with your work. Unless you're wildly
>connected and/or a frigging genius, the chances of your being able to do "the
>work you really want to do" for money, right off the bat, are somewhere down
>below zero. Sure, it might happen. You might win the lottery, too, and Jesus
>might come back, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Well, I'm not the best person to debate this point, since I got handed
a job reviewing films and writing columns right out of college --
which was EXACTLY the work I really wanted to do. Without connections,
I might add (I sent out my resume rather stupidly and blindly). My
writing career since then has been largely as serendipitously charmed.
But paying one's dues doesn't mean you're doing the work you really
want to do, anyway -- it's about doing the work you need to do in
order to do the work you want to do. During this portion of one's
life, there's a number of way one can deal with the problem -- one of
them is doing a job that pays a wage. The world is full of people who
write novels (or whatever) while doing other things, some of those
things are related to writing.
>> I have done work for free, but *never* under the guise
>>of "dues-paying" -- I'd do it for fun, or as a favor to a friend.
>
>Well...I have. A lot. I expect to do even more of it with the writing before I
>start making money...Frankly, I'd rather go back to construction or one of my other early life
>default shit jobs. At least you don't take those home with you.
Sure, and lots of people do that. The most famous example is Wallace
Stevens, who was a vice-president of an insurance company by day, and
a Pulitzer Prize-winning poet by night.
(This opens up another branch of the "art vs. commerce" debate, which
is whether it is actually necessary to ditch one's day job to "make
it" creatively. The answer is, of course, that it depends on the
person -- some people need to, but other people do not: People from
Stevens to Scott Adams kept their day jobs while becoming famous and
successful in their creative fields.)
>It's a matter of priorities, and you've known me long enough, John, that you
>shouldn't put some Young Socialists of America slant on what I'm about to say.
>Sometimes, it comes down to a choice between getting paid and doing what you
>want. Most of the time, the choice is made for you. I try very hard, especially
>these days, to bring the scales back to "what I want" rather than "getting
>paid."
Well, again, I think that depends on the person. Many people can get
paid and do what they want; getting paid *allows* them to do what they
want. Speaking for myself, I would never ditch a job to devote myself
full-time to creative work (I might ditch a job because I hated it,
and then do creative stuff afterwards, but that's not the same thing).
I wouldn't do it because I know myself well enough to know that I
wouldn't spend that extra time being creative, I'd spend that extra
time screwing around. But for me (and I think most people) it's not a
binary, "either/or" sort of thing. Many people can work a job and
still make time to write or follow their pursuits.
In my case, my novel is a fine example of that -- I wrote it almost
entirely on the weekends (roughly 5,000 words a weekend, for three
months or so -- you've got a novel). I'd spend the weekdays ruminating
on it, and doing paid work.
>>However, in today's current economic situation, there's *no*
>>reason, provided a certain level of competence, one can't pay one's
>>dues and earn a reasonable salary doing so.
>
>Really? Okay, John, how do you currently make "a reasonable salary" writing
>science fiction?
I don't. But I make a very good living *writing.* Some of it is not
exciting work, but most of it I enjoy very much. That work allows me
to do the creative work I enjoy as well. And it allows me to be
choosy, and not to put my work out there unless I feel it has benefit
to me.
My point is that one can usually make money working in one's chosen
field, and use that to one's advantage in following one's creative
pursuits. If a writer *wants* to make money in writing, it's entirely
possible.
>>Where I live, there's
>>currently a 1.9% unemployment rate, and anyone with a sliver of
>>competency is being snapped up to work. This boat-lifting includes
>>writing and editing positions.
>
>You mean jobs where you get to sit around all day and write whatever you want?
>Damn, John, I'm moving back east, 'cause we ain't got no jobs like that out
>here.
Almost no job itself lets one write whatever one wants, obviously.
However, a job can provide you the space (economically and otherwise)
to write the things you love to write. And, provided you get a job
writing, you can refine your skills and get paid for it at the same
time.
>>But anything that's begun with the *intent* of making money off of
>>other people's work, whether right then or in the future, well, that's
>>another matter.
>
>Not really. I "intend" to possibly make money someday from the mag. Then again,
>I'm perfectly happy if it never does. I also "intend" to pay writers, should the
>mag ever make money. Since all we're talking about, here, is intent, everybody's
>getting paid exactly what they should, and everybody's getting paid the same,
>even in your rather perplexing philosophical model.
I disagree that everybody's getting paid what they should. I'd also
ask you if you'd really be pleased if you never made money of your
'zine. If you would be, why do you bother trying to make money off of
it at all? Just let it be a true amateur site and don't sweat trying
to turn a profit at all.
>>It's a business venture, and in my book, if you're
>>going to have a business, you have to pay the expenses such a business
>>incurrs; in the case of a "magazine," that would include the writing.
>>Online 'zine publishers pay for *other* expenses (for example, the
>>cost of Web hosting)
>
>John, the cost of web hosting is somewhere areound "dick." You admit as much in
>your "Dr. Impatient" piece. People who run photocopied zines pay more to publish
>their work than I do, and they don't pay, either, for the most part.
So? People who print photocopied 'zines should pay their writers, too.
It costs something to get on the Internet one way or the other; even
the people with GeoCities sites mostly paid for their computers to get
there. Your site and mine both cost more than free, Robert: I pay $60
a month for my domain and virtual domain capability for some other
domains I own. I would imagine Ungh costs money to host somewhere,
unless you have them on your own computers, in which case the cost of
Web hosting is the cost of those computers (not to mention your
connection to the 'Net). Which, I imagine, is something more than
"dick."
If any costs are to be considered, the cost of the writing should be
among them. Of course, if they *are* somehow managing to get onto the
'Net completely without cost, all the better. More left over for the
writers.
>>In the case of your particular 'zine, Robert, it sounds like you do
>>*intend* to make a profit at some point, so, yes, I'd prefer you paid
>>your contributors. I'd be a lot more comfortable with it if it were
>>strictly amateur (using the older sense of the term, and not the
>>current definition).
>
>Uh...John. Not to sound nasty or anything, but I don't give a shit what you're
>"comfortable" with. As long as I'm happy, and my editor's happy, and the writers
>are happy, it's all good.
Your writers would be happier if they got paid, I'm sure. However,
whether or not you don't *care* what I think doesn't change the fact
that I think what you're doing is fundamentally wrong, and that's
something I would tell anyone.
>>One's desperation to make it in a particular business
>>does not give one license to exploit others on the way there (one
>>suspects that many of the crew involved in these productions were
>>friends and family, who as I've mentioned belong in a special class).
>
>Nope. Real people, usually with real contracts that say "You'll get paid if and
>when the movie sells." That's just the way it goes--otherwise there would be no
>independent film. Movies just plain cost too much...you could save your whole
>life, and not come up with the money it really takes to make a movie. There is
>no way in hell you'll ever get a financial institution to back an indie film,
>period.
Uh-huh. Well, it's all very sad for the independent filmmakers, then,
but what's an e-zine editor's excuse? It certainly doesn't take $150k
to pop out a Web site, as you've pointed out yourself. Even if I were
to cede the concept of no pay for indie filmmakers (which I don't),
it's not an analagous situation.
>>In any event, the argument of "everybody does it" doesn't mean it's
>>*right.*
>
>That's not what I said, John, and I think you know that.
Actually, I don't know that. You have established the idea that the
concept of not getting paid for creative work is something that is
expected to be the norm, as part of "paying one's dues." This sounds,
in so many words, like an "everybody does it" line of reasoning. I am
willing to believe I am grossly misrepresenting your line of
reasoning, however; please correct my misinterpretation.
>>How *much* one gets
>>paid is another matter entirely. I wouldn't expect a 'zine to pay
>>anything close to what an established magazine pays; I wouldn't expect
>>the gaffer on an independent film to get paid what the gaffer on "The
>>Phantom Menace" got paid. But I do expect they'd get paid.
>
>Well, they usually don't.
What, and God forbid if they do?
>If they do, it's usually squat, I mean, like not even
>enough to pay your rent for a month.
Well, and what's your point with that? If they don't get paid enough
to pay their rent, they'll get paid enough to get a certain percentage
of the waythere, and that's certainly better than working your ass off
and *still* having to come up with your entire rent. if I had to
choose between getting paid squat and getting paid nothing, I'll take
squat.
Look, there's nothing noble about genteel poverty while one strives
for creative excellence. Based both on experience and the reports of
other, being poor sucks. Unless there is no alternative, I wouldn't
suggest it. Part of that is making sure your work gets some sort of
financial renumeration.
>>The world is also full of places where you can work and get paid. The
>>question is, which do you want to do.
>
>I think I already answered that, but: I got paid. It wasn't worth the tradeoff.
I get paid, and it is. Everyone is different.
V-X
Scalzi II <jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:50:47 -0700, V-X <v...@ungh.com> had the
>unmitigated gall to say:
>
>>>(FYI, Robert, I'm responding to this post in misc.writing, which I
>>>suspect is a somewhat more "professional" group than ACW, into which
>>>this discussion has also been cross-posted.)
>>
>>Actually, I picked it up in rec.arts.horror.written. Guess what I'm writing?
>
>Something better than the last couple of Stephen Kings, I hope.
I wouldn't know. I read The Regulators because my sister gave it to me, and once
I got started on it, I just couldn't believe that anybody would write a ten
thousand page remake of "It's a Good Life" with the addition of the Power
Rangers doing drivebys the entire length of the book.
Guess what. I was wrong.
I seriously wondered if King had written the entire thing on a "sixties weekend"
with his wife while the kids were away or something.
Prior to that, I hadn't read a Stephen King book since I was a teenager.
>>>Be that as it may, while I definitely did my share of dues-paying, I
>>>disagree strongly that paying one's dues means that one cannot also
>>>get paid, one way or another.
>>
>>Not "cannot." It's what you choose to do with your work. Unless you're wildly
>>connected and/or a frigging genius, the chances of your being able to do "the
>>work you really want to do" for money, right off the bat, are somewhere down
>>below zero. Sure, it might happen. You might win the lottery, too, and Jesus
>>might come back, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
>Well, I'm not the best person to debate this point, since I got handed
>a job reviewing films and writing columns right out of college --
>which was EXACTLY the work I really wanted to do. Without connections,
>I might add (I sent out my resume rather stupidly and blindly). My
>writing career since then has been largely as serendipitously charmed.
Damn, you were right. You are lucky.
>(This opens up another branch of the "art vs. commerce" debate, which
>is whether it is actually necessary to ditch one's day job to "make
>it" creatively.
I don't think so, not at all. *I* needed to ditch my day job, but realistically,
that just means I have to get a different one.
>Well, again, I think that depends on the person. Many people can get
>paid and do what they want; getting paid *allows* them to do what they
>want.
Like I said, "sometimes."
>>>Where I live, there's
>>>currently a 1.9% unemployment rate, and anyone with a sliver of
>>>competency is being snapped up to work. This boat-lifting includes
>>>writing and editing positions.
>>
>>You mean jobs where you get to sit around all day and write whatever you want?
>>Damn, John, I'm moving back east, 'cause we ain't got no jobs like that out
>>here.
>
>Almost no job itself lets one write whatever one wants, obviously.
Well...that's what I want, to do what I want. I made it up to where my next step
was VP, and I still couldn't do what the fuck I wanted at work, despite the fact
that I kept getting hired for my "wild, new, creative" ideas. (Hey, guess what:
neither could the VPs. I swear, the higher you go, the worse the job gets...I
will never, ever, bitch about "the boss" again. Okay, I'm lying, I will.)
So...I admit it. I have a big giant ego. I don't want any more jobs that only
give me half strokes or no strokes. I want *all* the strokes, or nothing at all.
>I disagree that everybody's getting paid what they should. I'd also
>ask you if you'd really be pleased if you never made money of your
>'zine.
Yeah. I would.
>If you would be, why do you bother trying to make money off of
>it at all?
I'm not. It's just fun to try to build up hits. I can't even think about ads
unless the thing hits the kind of numbers the old Chick site used to get, and
that just plain may never happen. It's fun to try, though.
>Just let it be a true amateur site and don't sweat trying
>to turn a profit at all.
You should know by now that I don't do anything halfway, John, for better or
worse. (It tends to burn me out...maybe I should do a few things half-assed.)
>>John, the cost of web hosting is somewhere areound "dick." You admit as much in
>>your "Dr. Impatient" piece. People who run photocopied zines pay more to publish
>>their work than I do, and they don't pay, either, for the most part.
>
>So? People who print photocopied 'zines should pay their writers, too.
With what, exactly? Blood?
>Uh-huh. Well, it's all very sad for the independent filmmakers, then,
>but what's an e-zine editor's excuse? It certainly doesn't take $150k
>to pop out a Web site, as you've pointed out yourself. Even if I were
>to cede the concept of no pay for indie filmmakers (which I don't),
>it's not an analagous situation.
Sigh. Okay, Mr. Never-made-a-movie, never-ran-a-zine,
never-had-to-break-into-a-business-with-no-credentials-or-degree. Obviously,
I've never done the first, either, but I have done loads of the last two.
Oh, and from now on, John, you'll have to pay five dollars if you want to read
The Control Voice. After all, I have to pay writers, and there's no reason I
should just let you read the shit for free. That's just wrong, so very wrong. I
should be getting *paid* for my work!
Send me five dollars every time you hit TCV (should you ever), and I promise,
it'll all go to the other writers.
Everybody else can read the damned thing for free, and I'll be sure to pass that
on to the writers, too.
>>>In any event, the argument of "everybody does it" doesn't mean it's
>>>*right.*
>>
>>That's not what I said, John, and I think you know that.
>
>Actually, I don't know that. You have established the idea that the
>concept of not getting paid for creative work is something that is
>expected to be the norm, as part of "paying one's dues."
It is for most people, John.
>This sounds,
>in so many words, like an "everybody does it" line of reasoning.
No, it's a "that's just the way it goes" line of reasoning.
>>>How *much* one gets
>>>paid is another matter entirely. I wouldn't expect a 'zine to pay
>>>anything close to what an established magazine pays; I wouldn't expect
>>>the gaffer on an independent film to get paid what the gaffer on "The
>>>Phantom Menace" got paid. But I do expect they'd get paid.
>>
>>Well, they usually don't.
>
>What, and God forbid if they do?
No, glory to God in the highest, if they do. I don't see why I should have to
base the way I run my zine on one-in-a-zillion chances, though.
>>If they do, it's usually squat, I mean, like not even
>>enough to pay your rent for a month.
>
>Well, and what's your point with that?
That even when they are paid, it isn't anything like what they're worth. Are you
seriously so obsessed with coin, per se, that you think *any* amount of money
makes people smile? Hardly...another reason I don't pay writers is that I
couldn't possibly pay them anything that wouldn't be an insult to them, and a
stupid, pointless gesture on my part. "Here, kid. A whole dollah. Don't spend it
all in one place."
>If they don't get paid enough
>to pay their rent, they'll get paid enough to get a certain percentage
>of the waythere, and that's certainly better than working your ass off
>and *still* having to come up with your entire rent.
Um...no, getting paid half a month's rent for two or three months work doesn't
make you feel like "you're halfway there." It makes you question your sanity,
often, and it makes you have to burn the candle at like ninety different ends.
>Look, there's nothing noble about genteel poverty while one strives
>for creative excellence.
Nope, there isn't. Been there before, and now I am again. It sucks shit. It is,
however, at least for me, preferable to having my soul sucked dry for
eight-to-twelve hours a day and then trying to create anything that means
something to me.
>Based both on experience and the reports of
>other, being poor sucks. Unless there is no alternative, I wouldn't
>suggest it. Part of that is making sure your work gets some sort of
>financial renumeration.
>
>>>The world is also full of places where you can work and get paid. The
>>>question is, which do you want to do.
>>
>>I think I already answered that, but: I got paid. It wasn't worth the tradeoff.
>
>I get paid, and it is. Everyone is different.
Yep.
V-X
<s...@opengate-no-spa-m.co.uk> wrote:
>I think what hacks off writers about these E-zine folks is that any fool can
>put up a web page, and a lot of fools are doing it. The whole market is
>being swamped with badly constructed, readerless pages, whose editors think
>they are doing writers a favour by providing these dead end markets, whilst
>all they are really doing is growing their own ego's somewhat.
Then don't send them anything. *I* don't, and I get requests from half-assed
ezine publishers fairly often.
>And then
>they cap it all by suggesting that one day, if we all work hard enough, they
>might even be able to take the site commercial and pay people a few pennies.
>These people are just playing games, which is offensive to folks who've
>invested maybe ten years in learning their craft.
Oh, is that that what the kids are calling "jacking off and talking big" these
days?
>Some time, I'd like to see an ezine editor pitch to prospective authors on
>the basis of the work he's doing to get the site established.
I do. I work my ass off to try to promote the thing in every ethical and
quasi-ethical manner I can think of, and the writers know that. The zine's also
based in a newsgroup, where several of our writers hang out, one that gets a big
chunk of traffic, and a buttload of people from there read it. I raised hits
from 150 a day to 2500 a day in a week, the last serious push I gave. They've
dropped since the hiatus started, but we also get mail from people saying "I
started reading while you were on hiatus, and when are you coming back?" The
hits have stayed, consistently, around 2-300 a day, which is pretty good for an
amateur site that hasn't been updated in five months.
>But - as someone who's day
>job includes around building traffic to a web site - I can tell you that it
>doesn't happen unless you work just as hard as the editor scumbling around
>specialist bookshops with a bag of zenes under his arm.
It's not *that* hard, and it doesn't involve heavy lifting or leaving the house,
even.
jpe...@cnw.com
ian...@mindspring.com (Ian McDowell) wrote:
> In article <7rr8rh$6ar$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net>, "seb phillips"
> <s...@opengate-no-spa-m.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I think what hacks off writers about these E-zine folks is that any
fool can put up a web page, and a lot of fools are doing it. The whole
market is being swamped with badly constructed, readerless pages, whose
editors think they are doing writers a favour by providing these dead
end markets, whilst all they are really doing is growing their own
we all work hard enough, they might even be able to take the site
commercial and pay people a few pennies.
These people are just playing games, which is offensive to folks who've
invested maybe ten years in learning their craft.
>
disagreement with John, if he and I can even be said to disagree)
doesn't give anyone the idea that I'm an uncritical champion of the
average e-zine. There's nothing in the above statement that I'd
disagree with.
>
> Ian McDowell
>
Ian: (and everyone else):
One thing that often gets lost in Usenet debates is the tendency to
generalize, [note: I said "often" as opposed to "always" :-)].
Sometimes we forget Sturgeon's Law that states "90% of everything is
crap". This is true of print zines as well as e-zines, for every issue
of genuine treasures that I have filed away such as Nyctalops, The
Fanscient, Whispers, The Diversifier, Weirdbook, Fantasy Macabre,
Etchings & Odysseys, Enigmatic Tales, & All Hallows there's an entire
box of some of the damnedest crap imaginable.
Conversely, for every Event Horizon or Gothic.net there are dozens of
poorly-thought-out amatuerish websites that profess to be "markets".
Why do I direct bile to such "markets" when I've never, ever written to
a print-zine editor and told them to never send me their rag again?
Simple, (though it took Reed's post for me to see the difference...),
none of these fanzine editors ever sent out form letters to all of the
writers that they could think of asking for material with vague
promises of possible payment down the road. When they did solicit
material, they took the time to write individual letters asking for
material without pretenses of being a paying market. Some did evolve
into paying markets, but there was always the sense that a zine
publisher was genuinely committed to the toil required gathering, re-
typing, collating, printing, folding, & mailing the results of their
vision. In short, you knew that the person involved was putting a lot
more effort into it than they could ever hope to be compensated for.
Maybe it's the inherent arrogance and laziness of spamming in search of
material that I find so offensive, maybe it's the ease with which any
boob with internet access can score a free web-page and proclaim
himself an "editor"; maybe it's a combination of the above...
Anyway, fondly thinking of the 10%...
John
John Michael Scalzi II
unmitigated gall to say:
>On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:33:25 -0400, in rec.arts.horror.written, John Michael
>Scalzi II <jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply> wrote:
>>Well, I'm not the best person to debate this point, since I got handed
>>a job reviewing films and writing columns right out of college --
>>which was EXACTLY the work I really wanted to do. Without connections,
>>I might add (I sent out my resume rather stupidly and blindly). My
>>writing career since then has been largely as serendipitously charmed.
>
>Damn, you were right. You are lucky.
Yep!
>Well...that's what I want, to do what I want. I made it up to where my next step
>was VP, and I still couldn't do what the fuck I wanted at work, despite the fact
>that I kept getting hired for my "wild, new, creative" ideas. (Hey, guess what:
>neither could the VPs. I swear, the higher you go, the worse the job gets...I
>will never, ever, bitch about "the boss" again. Okay, I'm lying, I will.)
>
>So...I admit it. I have a big giant ego. I don't want any more jobs that only
>give me half strokes or no strokes. I want *all* the strokes, or nothing at all.
And that's certainly your perogative. I certainly don't want you to
think I think you made the wrong decision for *you* -- you did what
you felt you had to do. And you have to respect that.
>>Just let it be a true amateur site and don't sweat trying
>>to turn a profit at all.
>
>You should know by now that I don't do anything halfway, John, for better or
>worse. (It tends to burn me out...maybe I should do a few things half-assed.)
Hmmmm....I don't think it's "half-assed" to do a site that is
willfully amatuer (that's amateur as in "for the love of it" anot
amateur as in "stupid and lame"). A good amateur site has immense
value (your Chick site was a great example of that).
>>>John, the cost of web hosting is somewhere areound "dick." You admit as much in
>>>your "Dr. Impatient" piece. People who run photocopied zines pay more to publish
>>>their work than I do, and they don't pay, either, for the most part.
>>
>>So? People who print photocopied 'zines should pay their writers, too.
>
>With what, exactly? Blood?
How is this my problem? I'm not running their 'zine, so I couldn't
care less how they go about paying their writers (short of, you know,
mugging people). I just know they should.
>>Uh-huh. Well, it's all very sad for the independent filmmakers, then,
>>but what's an e-zine editor's excuse? It certainly doesn't take $150k
>>to pop out a Web site, as you've pointed out yourself. Even if I were
>>to cede the concept of no pay for indie filmmakers (which I don't),
>>it's not an analagous situation.
>
>Sigh. Okay, Mr. Never-made-a-movie, never-ran-a-zine,
>never-had-to-break-into-a-business-with-no-credentials-or-degree. Obviously,
>I've never done the first, either, but I have done loads of the last two.
Admittedly, I haven't tried to make a movie.
But I *have* created online sites -- the first the humor forum on AOL
(in which I convinced AOL, the ultimate in "Let's get out content for
free" sites, to shell out up to $250 for articles and cartoons for an
entire year), and most recently, a videogame review site, which will
be up in the next couple of weeks, and which already has sponsorship
and which will, should I need additional writers, pay them for their
content. Unlike the AOL site, in which I was merely the editor, I own
this videogame site -- it's my work and effort on the line.
And you also know I regularly put up new, previously unpublished
content on my own site; as a result, Scalzi.Com gets a couple thousand
visitors a week -- certainly enough to qualify as a 'zine. I don't
make money off the Scalzi.Com site (it is, in this sense, an amateur
site); I just do it for the fun of it.
Finally, I have given serious thought to creating a literary online
site; what's prevented me is the fact that I needed to be able to find
a revenue source that would enable me to pay contributors what I think
is a reasonable rate (and also whether I have the time to make the
committment to it). I'm still thinking about whether to do it -- I
have the money now, but I don't know that I have the time.
In short, I know all about creating online sites, paid and unpaid. I
just don't expect other people to contribute unless I can pay them.
>Oh, and from now on, John, you'll have to pay five dollars if you want to read
>The Control Voice. After all, I have to pay writers, and there's no reason I
>should just let you read the shit for free. That's just wrong, so very wrong. I
>should be getting *paid* for my work!
Good thing I visited before I had to pay, then.
*You* don't neccessarily need to get paid -- you run the site, and you
naturally subsume some of the costs involved. Your writers are another
story.
>>>>In any event, the argument of "everybody does it" doesn't mean it's
>>>>*right.*
>>>
>>>That's not what I said, John, and I think you know that.
>>
>>Actually, I don't know that. You have established the idea that the
>>concept of not getting paid for creative work is something that is
>>expected to be the norm, as part of "paying one's dues."
>
>It is for most people, John.
>
>>This sounds,
>>in so many words, like an "everybody does it" line of reasoning.
>
>No, it's a "that's just the way it goes" line of reasoning.
Uh-huh. That's just the way it goes, in part, because everybody does
it. This fatalistic resignation to not getting paid strikes me as
passive.
Look, I've never accepted the idea that one can't get paid for one's
work -- and as a result, I've pretty much always gotten paid. I'm good
at what I do, but I'm not *so* good that other people couldn't do the
same thing.
>>If they don't get paid enough
>>to pay their rent, they'll get paid enough to get a certain percentage
>>of the waythere, and that's certainly better than working your ass off
>>and *still* having to come up with your entire rent.
>
>Um...no, getting paid half a month's rent for two or three months work doesn't
>make you feel like "you're halfway there." It makes you question your sanity,
>often, and it makes you have to burn the candle at like ninety different ends.
And doing the same work for *free* doesn't? That's total, unmitigated
crap. And here's how to put it to the test: Tell someone what you want
them to do (say: Write a music review). In return for the review,
offer to pay them $5, or offer to pay them nothing. All things being
equal, people will take the five bucks.
>>Look, there's nothing noble about genteel poverty while one strives
>>for creative excellence.
>
>Nope, there isn't. Been there before, and now I am again. It sucks shit. It is,
>however, at least for me, preferable to having my soul sucked dry for
>eight-to-twelve hours a day and then trying to create anything that means
>something to me.
Yes, but *your* decision to forgo doesn't equate to anyone else
needing to make the same sacrifice.
seb phillips
phillips"
><s...@opengate-no-spa-m.co.uk> wrote:
>>I think what hacks off writers about these E-zine folks is that any fool
can
>>put up a web page, and a lot of fools are doing it. The whole market is
>>being swamped with badly constructed, readerless pages, whose editors
think
>>they are doing writers a favour by providing these dead end markets,
whilst
>>all they are really doing is growing their own ego's somewhat.
>Then don't send them anything. *I* don't, and I get requests from
half-assed
>ezine publishers fairly often.
Funnily enough, I don't either send them stuff either. Doesn't stop me being
annoyed at having to wade through
postings from these people, or checking their listings to see it's yet
another clown who thinks writers are all amateurs who don't expect to be
paid.
Market research is something writers have to do and these crappy sites just
get in the way. They're like weeds in the garden, wasps at the picnic. They
should be killed with bug sprays.
>>And then
>>they cap it all by suggesting that one day, if we all work hard enough,
they
>>might even be able to take the site commercial and pay people a few
pennies.
>>These people are just playing games, which is offensive to folks who've
>>invested maybe ten years in learning their craft.
>Oh, is that that what the kids are calling "jacking off and talking big"
these
>days?
When did you say you last updated your web site? Five months? I guess I'll
just have to defer to your greater knowledge on the subject of jacking off.
That's the best thing about the internet - there's always an expert when you
need one.
>>Some time, I'd like to see an ezine editor pitch to prospective authors on
>>the basis of the work he's doing to get the site established.
>I do. I work my ass off to try to promote the thing in every ethical and
>quasi-ethical manner I can think of, and the writers know that.
Then frankly, that makes you one of the good guys, for which I congratulate
you. Genuinely.
Doesn't mean there aren't 25,000 other e-zine editors out there who don't
even know
what a search engine is or what you do with a meta tag.
>The hits have stayed, consistently, around 2-300 a day, which is pretty
good for an
>amateur site that hasn't been updated in five months.
Or just shows how many hits you can get with no work at all - thanks for
telling the other e-zine editors that. "Hey, this guys mag is DEAD and he
still gets people visiting his page". Land of the living dead web sites,
cue scary muzak, etc.
>>But - as someone who's day
>>job includes around building traffic to a web site - I can tell you that
it
>>doesn't happen unless you work just as hard as the editor scumbling around
>>specialist bookshops with a bag of zenes under his arm.
>It's not *that* hard, and it doesn't involve heavy lifting or leaving the
house,
>even.
If that was true, it would be even more of a shame that most zine editors
don't bother, but it's not. When it
comes to promoting your site, there's always more you can do - saying 'it's
not hard work' is the same as saying
'I don't work hard at it.'
And as for not leaving the house, one word - Conventions.
My point remains the same - if zine editors want to be seen as anything
other than skulking pariahs, then they have
to put their backs into creating professional looking sites which have a
large readership. A lot of editors are doing
just that - there are excellent sites out there, many of which don't
actually pay but are always worth reading
and even worth submitting to. We need more zine editors like that - and a
damned site less who believe that
because cheapskate.net gives them a free homepage with their e-mail they
have everything they need to run a
cracking webzine.
Sebastian.
S...@opengate.co.uk
Towse
>
> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:52:50 -0700, V-X <v...@ungh.com> had the
> unmitigated gall to say:
/whack/
> >Um...no, getting paid half a month's rent for two or three months work
> >doesn't make you feel like "you're halfway there." It makes you
> >question your sanity, often, and it makes you have to burn the candle
> >at like ninety different ends.
>
> And doing the same work for *free* doesn't? That's total, unmitigated
> crap. And here's how to put it to the test: Tell someone what you want
> them to do (say: Write a music review). In return for the review,
> offer to pay them $5, or offer to pay them nothing. All things being
> equal, people will take the five bucks.
/whack/
Here's another "benefit" to at least paying your writers "a pittance"
as one market termed their pay scale.
You want your name out there? Want to attract writers?
We have over 45K subscribers to our bi-weekly e-newsletter for
writers. At Inklings <http://www.inkspot.com/inklings> we *only* cover
markets that pay. The markets we cover tend to get a huge increase in
submissions after we cover them.
Wouldn't you rather pick and choose what you need for your site
instead of depending on flogging your no-pay ezine in newsgroups and
arguing with the likes of our guy John Michael "Show Me The Money!"
Scalzi II about whether you should pay or not?
Paying markets for writers vary. Some times the pay is significant.
Some times the pay is scanty or "a pittance." The *lowest* pay scale I
ever saw, and I can't remember if we covered the market, was a market
that offered a ha'penny CANADIAN a word. No, there was that one that
offered $5 for stories/articles up to 5K words. You catch my drift.
Offer something. Offer a pittance. I guarantee you'll get more
submissions at very little increase in cost to you. You'll have the
glory of being able to pick and choose what you put on your site.
You'll make your writers happy by giving them something in return for
their work. And you won't be drawn into these arguments on the very
newsgroups from which you hope to solicit your stable of writers.
Hey, Scalzi? When you start looking for writers for your new site, let
me know what you need and what sort of pittance you're offering.
Sal
paghat
> paghat wrote:
> > In article <7rp296$2eo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gwco...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Comparing ezines on any level with print media is rather foolish & a
> > TERRIBLE replacement for them because they don't actually exist, do they?
> > If you archive back issues your magazine will exist for as long as you pay
> > your server to give it space on the web. Then it's gone. Whereas real
> > magazines are somewhat permanent & many people do collect them & the older
> > they get the more valuable they get. Your ezine has no intrinsic value now
> > or in the future. It's ephemera & to regard it as a replacement for a
> > magazine because it's cheaper is like throwing away sculpture because you
> > can shape artworks out of soap bubbles that melt away to nothing or you
> > can mold dogshit & keep it around until it gets moldy instead of molded.
>
> Ezines can be released on disc as well as the Web. I was in one that was
> supposed to collect each year's issues on a CD at the end of the year,
> but folded before that ever happened. So at least the possibility exists
> that an ezine need not be ephemeral....
Dan:
The future of discs as a viable alternate market is still up in the air.
Though I won't like it I presume they'll become more popular with time
though at the moment it appears that people who read fiction still prefer
the feel of a book. Where CDroms have made incursions to print-media
markets has been in areas of nonfiction reference materials. A CD with
five translations of the Bible for example has easy-reference
possibilities that can outdo anyone jumping from book to book to compare
particular passages; & an extensive reference library on a given topic
with search feature on a single disc has definite quick-research appeal.
But will the average shmoe who likes a particular kind of commercial genre
novel -- mystery, s-f, horror, historical romance -- ever want to lay back
in bed with a reading-screen instead of a book? Time will tell. I
personally doubt it but many companies are trying to perfect technologies
that they believe will rival the book; & who knows but that a coming
generation that was weaned not only on television & video games but also
on the world wide web will find much less "natural" aesthetic to the
printed page than a glowing screen. At the moment even people who like
e-texts (who are few & far between) tend to print them out to read them.
-paghat
V-X
<s...@opengate-no-spa-m.co.uk> wrote:
>Market research is something writers have to do and these crappy sites just
>get in the way. They're like weeds in the garden, wasps at the picnic. They
>should be killed with bug sprays.
Uh...if you can't tell, just from an email or Usenet post, who's a total goober,
maybe you should hone your "research" skills a little more.
As for being forced to "wade through" these people's posts, what does that mean,
exactly? Does the mere fact of these people's existence bother you? If that's
the case, being no stranger to obsessive hatred, myself, I probably don't have
much room to criticize you.
>>Oh, is that that what the kids are calling "jacking off and talking big"
>these
>>days?
>
>When did you say you last updated your web site? Five months? I guess I'll
>just have to defer to your greater knowledge on the subject of jacking off.
I'd say "touche," except I was sorta consumed with running the creative end of
Visa's online presence, the last five months. (Yes, *that* Visa.) I managed to
get the five months of weekly issues of TCV that did come out done while I was
redesigning the McAfee and Dr. Solomon's antivirus and network security lines of
software, full time.
>That's the best thing about the internet - there's always an expert when you
>need one.
No, the best thing is that "experts" usually only reveal themselves when some
clown comes on all condescending.
>>The hits have stayed, consistently, around 2-300 a day, which is pretty
>good for an
>>amateur site that hasn't been updated in five months.
>
>Or just shows how many hits you can get with no work at all
No, it shows how many hits *I* can get with no work at all, and after a
hellaciously intense effort, because I know what the fuck I'm doing. Hey, little
weenie zine publishers: you can't do this. I promise. Don't even try.
There, is that better?
>>It's not *that* hard, and it doesn't involve heavy lifting or leaving the
>house,
>>even.
>
>If that was true, it would be even more of a shame that most zine editors
>don't bother, but it's not. When it
>comes to promoting your site, there's always more you can do - saying 'it's
>not hard work' is the same as saying
>'I don't work hard at it.'
Maybe for you. Not for me. It's so easy it's kind of boring, to tell you the
truth. There's a reason I rose as high as I did as fast as I did, and a reason
why I'm not stressed about having to return to that work, should the need arise.
.
So spare me the lecture, Junior.
John Michael Scalzi II
unmitigated gall to say:
>Hey, Scalzi? When you start looking for writers for your new site, let
>me know what you need and what sort of pittance you're offering.
You got yourself a deal, there, Sal.
C.L. Getz
>On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:28:18 -0700, Towse <to...@inkspot.com> had the
>unmitigated gall to say:
>
>>Hey, Scalzi? When you start looking for writers for your new site, let
>>me know what you need and what sort of pittance you're offering.
>
>You got yourself a deal, there, Sal.
I've learned to accept pittances. What I want are simple, basic things like a
contract, electronic rights, etc. I recently followed up on one novice ezine
publisher's recruitment ad on this newsgroup and found his interest in me
rapidly diminished when I asked about such pesky stuff.
He loftily responded that as he didn't think someone of my experience would
*really* accept the pay he was offering, he wasn't going to continue our
discussion any longer, so bye bye.
I don't think it's too much to ask publishers or editors who advertise on this
newsgroup to be able to pay at least a pittance, pay on acceptance or within
some mutually agreed-upon period of publication, and pay a nominal kill fee if
accepted work doesn't get published within the agreed-upon period. It would
also be shockingly professional of them to come right out with what rights
they want, whether work is to be "assigned" or "for hire" and have a basic
contract spelling this all out. If they actually had a set of writer's
guidelines readily available, that would be great.
But I'm not holding my breath.
C.L. Getz
Please change "nospam" to "net" in e-mail address to reply.
V-X
wrote:
>When they did solicit
>material, they took the time to write individual letters asking for
>material without pretenses of being a paying market.
Which is exactly how we do it, after one rather embarrasing and early post to a
couple of writing groups. Not "embarassing" for us, really, just...god, are
there a lot of people who think they can write in the world. Approaching people
we like, again, cuts down on the slush pile factor.
V-X
(C.L. Getz) wrote:
>I don't think it's too much to ask publishers or editors who advertise on this
>newsgroup to be able to pay at least a pittance
Okay, fine. From now on, everybody who writes for The Control Voice gets a shiny
new penny. How's that? It's money. It's "a pittance." It's not much more
insulting than five bucks for a 1-2000 word piece, and having to suffer through
as stringent an editing process as we can manage. (Seriously, we've had pieces
jerked and almost lost our best writer over that. Neither of us gets to run shit
without as severe an edit as we can manage, so nobody else does, either. It's
one of the reasons we're coming back biweekly...weekly just didn't give us
enough time to do the work right, not with Real Lives to work around. )
There, now I can rest easy, having fulfilled my moral obligation to
"alt.creative.writing" or "misc.writing" or wherever all this nonsense is coming
from.
Oh, and writers for TCV know, outright, that we're getting one-time, time
unlimited web rights, only. They're free to do with their work nearly whatever
they like after it's published at TCV. We demand exclusivity where other online
zines are concerned, but not the creator's personal site. If we ever get into a
postion to do print stuff or anything, serious negotiations start then, and
we're not counting on being able to hold on to every piece we've run at that
point. We further have stated that if things turn around that way, total
renegotiations are required, with some kind of real right purchased on our end,
and retroactive pay for the original web piece, should the author choose to sell
us any real rights to the work. We've also made it clear that at that point, any
work w/o rights transferred to us will be taken off the web site, and be
entirely the property of the author.
I have a standard letter on all that for future writers. Everybody who's
writtten for us in the past got that letter, and a chance to remove their work
if they wanted, about seven months ago. We don't need a contract, at this point.
Emailed "handshakes" are fine.
We're going to start adding downloadable .pdfs and PalmPilot Docs in the next
month or so, too, and then we *will* have to renegotiate and start paying
people, possibly per download. I'm not a total moron, folks.
John Michael Scalzi II
unmitigated gall to say:
>Okay, fine. From now on, everybody who writes for The Control Voice gets a shiny
>new penny. How's that? It's money.
Inasmuch as you're going to have to pay 33 cents to mail the penny,
you might as well make it 67 cents. Makes a nice round number for
accounting purposes.
Reed Andrus
jpe...@cnw.com wrote:
> Ian: (and everyone else):
>
> One thing that often gets lost in Usenet debates is the tendency to
> generalize, [note: I said "often" as opposed to "always" :-)].
> Sometimes we forget Sturgeon's Law that states "90% of everything is
> crap". This is true of print zines as well as e-zines, for every issue
> of genuine treasures that I have filed away such as Nyctalops, The
> Fanscient, Whispers, The Diversifier, Weirdbook, Fantasy Macabre,
> Etchings & Odysseys, Enigmatic Tales, & All Hallows there's an entire
> box of some of the damnedest crap imaginable.
Hi John!
Geez, this thread has turned me all retrospective and mushy, remembering
the days when I first discovered SF fandom (I wasn't all that young,
maybe 26, and "discover" isn't the right word, either -- actively
entered printed fandom is probably a better phrase). The names you cite
are as familiar to me as they are to you, and as fondly remembered. But
I also remember the crap, and the naive goshwowboyoboy attitude of
fellow neo-phans. I remember it well because I suffered from it. Is the
Internet so much different? Sure, Sturgeon's Law applies, but it seems
we use it as a ballbat to the back of the head with electronic media,
whereas we used it as gentle chiding with authors of less-than-stellar
printed material. The drooling propeller-head was tolerated once upon a
time. Now we're trying to drive them out of business.
> Conversely, for every Event Horizon or Gothic.net there are dozens of
> poorly-thought-out amatuerish websites that profess to be "markets".
> Why do I direct bile to such "markets" when I've never, ever written to
> a print-zine editor and told them to never send me their rag again?
I had a response like that back in my fanzine days. I remember it well.
My first reaction was that the lady in question was having a bad hair
day, or that she was mistaking my innocuous labor of love for something
else. So I sent her another copy. Her response the second time was much
nastier. Now I had a challenge on my hands. I sent her a third issue.
This time, no response. The fun was over. To this day, I'll always
wonder what caused the violent reaction from a fairly Big-Name Fan whose
address I picked up from another fanzine. But even then, bad press was
better than no press at all.
> Simple, (though it took Reed's post for me to see the difference...),
> none of these fanzine editors ever sent out form letters to all of the
> writers that they could think of asking for material with vague
> promises of possible payment down the road. When they did solicit
> material, they took the time to write individual letters asking for
> material without pretenses of being a paying market. Some did evolve
> into paying markets, but there was always the sense that a zine
> publisher was genuinely committed to the toil required gathering, re-
> typing, collating, printing, folding, & mailing the results of their
> vision. In short, you knew that the person involved was putting a lot
> more effort into it than they could ever hope to be compensated for.
So it's the medium of communication you're disagreeing with, not
necessarily the content of the message? If one of these spammers were to
contact you politely and individually rather than use the inherent power
of the Internet for a blanket message, then you would treat them
differently? You know me pretty well, John. I'm not taking potshots
here. I'm just curious. In the two years or so that I've been on line,
I've watched the byplay of Usenet folks on a number of newsgroups. I'm
still trying to formulate an opinion. There are a lot of people who are
scared to death that this form of literature/communication/information
transfer is gonna be the death of printed work. Couple the Internet with
the mega-chains like amazon and B&N -- you know the arguments.
Therefore, we applaud the Ash Tree Presses and the Nightshade Presses
and the other small publishing houses that are taking care with their
product, seeming to respect their readership. Why aren't us consumers
taking the same approach to what amounts to New Fandom? Sure, there are
spammers amongst the group, trying to get rich quick somehow, but then
again, aren't we all?
> Maybe it's the inherent arrogance and laziness of spamming in search of
> material that I find so offensive, maybe it's the ease with which any
> boob with internet access can score a free web-page and proclaim
> himself an "editor"; maybe it's a combination of the above...
Do you remember how Locus began? Four pages, barely legible -- it was a
minimalist fanzine with Charlie Brown trying to find enough genre news
to fill up those four pages. Was there arrogance there? I dunno. I agree
with a lot of what you say -- if writers (like myself) are really
interested in producing work that will be recognized for admission into
SFWA or MWA or HWA or some form of group acceptance, then they will go
in that direction. If they are raised on the Internet, learn from the
Internet, feel comfortable with the Internet (and more and more people
are going this route), then we probably have to expect an electronic
variation of fannish behavior. Don't we?
> Anyway, fondly thinking of the 10%...
>
> John
As do I. Say what you want about Stephen King. In his latest book he
gives strongly worded praise to Cliff Simak's Ring Around The Sun. Some
folks remember ...
... Reed (too young to care when the Golden Age was fading, dammit)
PProze
>but for the most part, a lot of Ezines pay these days, and all
>though it may only be 1-3c/word, at least it's something.
Assignments for e-zines and websites have been some of the best-paying short
work I've done in the past couple of years. Pieces for Nerve.com,
Gettingit.com, and the Matrix site have paid far better than any anthology I've
ever sold to, not to mention that they probably reached far larger readerships.
PZB
Eve Rings
>Gettingit.com
I love this website. Lydia's love advice on scatology is too amsuing.
Oh My! Where have you been?!
You've been missed, gurl.
Women's Horror Online Reverence Ensemble
http://magdaleneandthemarquis.com/Whore/Index.htm
Magdalene and the Marquis
http://www.magdaleneandthemarquis.com
V-X
<to...@inkspot.com> wrote:
>Wouldn't you rather pick and choose what you need for your site
>instead of depending on flogging your no-pay ezine in newsgroups and
>arguing with the likes of our guy John Michael "Show Me The Money!"
>Scalzi II about whether you should pay or not?
No, not really. Getting in fights with people on Usenet is what I do to stay
sharp when I can't work, for one reason or another. Some of my best work comes
out of fights on Usenet.
>Offer something. Offer a pittance. I guarantee you'll get more
>submissions at very little increase in cost to you.
Reason #20, why I don't want to pay, at this point. To be honest, I don't want
any more cold submissions. They all suck shit. The last thing I want is for
Christina to have wade through a bigger pile of morons vying for ten bucks a
review, or whatever. (Someday, John, if I can find it, I'll send you the
infamous "Fellini sucks" review of Nights of Cabiria. That is, literally, all
the guy had to say about one of the greatest directors in history: "Fellini
sucks. I hate him. He's boring." No backup, no defense, no nothing, and he
apparently thought this was some kind of iconoclastic act. Jesus, and people
think *I've* got gall...)
Not paying until you can something at least halfway reasonable tends to cut out
the clueless, whether you believe that or not. People are more timid about
submissions, the higher the payoff is. *Anybody* can try to get ten bucks,
and...whaddya know, anybody does.
Ian McDowell
(PProze) wrote:
>Assignments for e-zines and websites have been some of the best-paying short
>work I've done in the past couple of years. Pieces for Nerve.com,
>Gettingit.com, and the Matrix site have paid far better than any anthology I've
>ever sold to, not to mention that they probably reached far larger readerships.
>
>PZB
I wouldn't be surprised if what you got paid for the Matrix thing wasn't
at least a goodly portion of what I got as an advance for MORDRED'S CURSE.
Ian
Skrybe
paghat <pag...@my-dejaUNSPAMO.com> wrote in message
news:7rtu6o$ii9$1...@199.201.191.2...
I agree with Dan (It was Dan wasn't it) who said that ezines can be
collected on disk. In fact I've copied text from a couple (where I thought
the stories were good enough) and saved it on CD, just in case the website
folds. I find the idea of publishing on CD interesting. It costs about $2 to
create a CD for me, so a professional pressing must be fairly cheap. That
lowers production costs. On top of that you can store a LOT of information
on a CD. If you are using a reasonable desktop pubishing app there's no
reason you can't have lashings of full colour artwork and even audio on the
CD.
Just imagine one of your favourite ghost stories with a suitably eerie
backing soundtrack that can play automatically when you read it. The
soundtrack could even be context sensitive - when you reach the "page" where
the ghost appears the music crescendoes. The possibilities are endless.
Personally, I'd rather see this sort of publication than some of the
crapulent "games" that have been put out where you hardly interact *and* you
don't have a plot. You gain some of the benefits of a movie (sound, some
pictures) but still provide good old fashioned text to prompt the viewers
good old fashioned imagination.
Paghat, in relation to the seven points you made earlier about publishing in
an ezine, I think you've just about hit the nail on the head there
perfectly. I will say though, I think it is possible to have ezines which
pay a larger fee to their contributors. However, they would need to have
original internet published only versions of Stephen King or Clive Barker or
someone equally bankable. Maybe in the future we'll see sites with
"Authorcheck" instead of "Adultcheck"...
--
Skrybe aka nospam.Ke...@publicworks.qld.gov.au
You know what to do with the spam...
Is it true that cannibals won't eat clowns because they taste funny?
ICQ: 30519074
Skrybe's Tales of Terror
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~skrybe/
Overdue for an update - coming soon
Skrybe
> In article <iankmcd-1609...@pool-209-138-129-18.atln.grid.net>,
> ian...@mindspring.com (Ian McDowell) wrote:
> > <s...@opengate-no-spa-m.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >I think what hacks off writers about these E-zine folks is that any
> fool can put up a web page, and a lot of fools are doing it. The whole
> market is being swamped with badly constructed, readerless pages, whose
> editors think they are doing writers a favour by providing these dead
> end markets, whilst all they are really doing is growing their own
> we all work hard enough, they might even be able to take the site
> commercial and pay people a few pennies.
> These people are just playing games, which is offensive to folks who've
> invested maybe ten years in learning their craft.
> >
> disagreement with John, if he and I can even be said to disagree)
> doesn't give anyone the idea that I'm an uncritical champion of the
> average e-zine. There's nothing in the above statement that I'd
> disagree with.
> >
> > Ian McDowell
> >
>
>
> One thing that often gets lost in Usenet debates is the tendency to
> generalize, [note: I said "often" as opposed to "always" :-)].
> Sometimes we forget Sturgeon's Law that states "90% of everything is
> crap". This is true of print zines as well as e-zines, for every issue
> of genuine treasures that I have filed away such as Nyctalops, The
> Fanscient, Whispers, The Diversifier, Weirdbook, Fantasy Macabre,
> Etchings & Odysseys, Enigmatic Tales, & All Hallows there's an entire
> box of some of the damnedest crap imaginable.
>
> poorly-thought-out amatuerish websites that profess to be "markets".
> Why do I direct bile to such "markets" when I've never, ever written to
> a print-zine editor and told them to never send me their rag again?
>
> none of these fanzine editors ever sent out form letters to all of the
> writers that they could think of asking for material with vague
> promises of possible payment down the road. When they did solicit
> material, they took the time to write individual letters asking for
> material without pretenses of being a paying market. Some did evolve
> into paying markets, but there was always the sense that a zine
> publisher was genuinely committed to the toil required gathering, re-
> typing, collating, printing, folding, & mailing the results of their
> vision. In short, you knew that the person involved was putting a lot
>
> Maybe it's the inherent arrogance and laziness of spamming in search of
> material that I find so offensive, maybe it's the ease with which any
> boob with internet access can score a free web-page and proclaim
> himself an "editor"; maybe it's a combination of the above...
>
>
>
>
> John
Hmmm. Maybe I see both sides of the story here... I feel that (good) ezines
do require conscientious effort from the editor. A good site gives me the
feeling that the person behind it is putting in effort - in much the same
way as a paper zine editor is labouring to create their work. The type of
work may be different but it is there.
Maybe I can see the effort required because I've had to work on a couple
sites for "work". Nothing as impressive as what V-X was talking about.
However, even creating a small presence with a couple dozen pages on an
intranet gives you an idea just how much labour is involved in creating a
good zine.
Frankly, I don't see all the fuss. If the editor of the zine can be upfront
about the paying situation why not have ezines? If, as a potential writer
for an ezine I know that I'm not going to get paid for my submission and
that I am probably throwing away the first publication benefits then isn't
that a decision for me to make? I can understand slamming the more obvious
sharks but why slam the amateur sites and the honest quasi-professional
ones?
John Michael Scalzi II
unmitigated gall to say:
>Reason #20, why I don't want to pay, at this point. To be honest, I don't want
>any more cold submissions. They all suck shit. The last thing I want is for
>Christina to have wade through a bigger pile of morons vying for ten bucks a
>review, or whatever.
My solution to that particular issue, when I was editing the humor
area on AOL: I made people submit through snail mail. This outraged
some would be contributors ("*AOL* wants submissions through regular
mail?!?!?!?"), but that 33 cent stamp is an amazing bozo filter.
>(Someday, John, if I can find it, I'll send you the
>infamous "Fellini sucks" review of Nights of Cabiria. That is, literally, all
>the guy had to say about one of the greatest directors in history: "Fellini
>sucks. I hate him. He's boring." No backup, no defense, no nothing, and he
>apparently thought this was some kind of iconoclastic act. Jesus, and people
>think *I've* got gall...)
All movie critics should be shot (*former* movie critics, such as
myself, should merely given a stern talking to).
>Not paying until you can something at least halfway reasonable tends to cut out
>the clueless, whether you believe that or not. People are more timid about
>submissions, the higher the payoff is. *Anybody* can try to get ten bucks,
>and...whaddya know, anybody does.
I don't know that I would agree with that particular line of
reasoning. You *will* assure you won't get high-quality submissions
outside of your own little core group, since good pro writers don't
work for free. You will also probably attract the quality of writer
who assumes that since you pay nothing, you'll accept *anything.* In
the end, your "crap percentage" is still going to be higher than you
want.
V-X
Scalzi II <jo...@scalzi.com.remove.to.reply> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 18:18:02 -0700, V-X <v...@ungh.com> had the
>unmitigated gall to say:
>
>
>>Reason #20, why I don't want to pay, at this point. To be honest, I don't want
>>any more cold submissions. They all suck shit. The last thing I want is for
>>Christina to have wade through a bigger pile of morons vying for ten bucks a
>>review, or whatever.
>
>My solution to that particular issue, when I was editing the humor
>area on AOL: I made people submit through snail mail. This outraged
>some would be contributors ("*AOL* wants submissions through regular
>mail?!?!?!?"), but that 33 cent stamp is an amazing bozo filter.
Uh, that's a miserable solution, John. And if you say "At least I paid," I will
remind you that you were working for AO-fucking-L. Hey, I used to hire people
for five-figure salaries. Think I should start paying my editor something like
that?
>I don't know that I would agree with that particular line of
>reasoning. You *will* assure you won't get high-quality submissions
>outside of your own little core group, since good pro writers don't
>work for free. You will also probably attract the quality of writer
>who assumes that since you pay nothing, you'll accept *anything.* In
>the end, your "crap percentage" is still going to be higher than you
>want.
Well, it's not. It's always fun when reasoning meets reality.
V-X
<nospam.ke...@publicworks.qld.gov.au> wrote:
>Maybe I can see the effort required because I've had to work on a couple
>sites for "work". Nothing as impressive as what V-X was talking about.
It's not that impressive, most of it I'm not crazy about, and if you've done any
web work, you have just as much call to comment on the work involved as I do.
>Frankly, I don't see all the fuss. If the editor of the zine can be upfront
>about the paying situation why not have ezines? If, as a potential writer
>for an ezine I know that I'm not going to get paid for my submission and
>that I am probably throwing away the first publication benefits then isn't
>that a decision for me to make? I can understand slamming the more obvious
>sharks but why slam the amateur sites and the honest quasi-professional
>ones?
Here's a guess: you have to do something when nobody actually wants to *buy*
your work, and developing conspiracy theories and Seven Year Plans for Everybody
Else will do?
jpe...@cnw.com
First and foremost, I think the "hobby" aspect of most zines was always
emphasized. Secondly, one thing that the 'net has done is to make
communication between like-minded individuals much easier. This is a
good thing and a bad thing at the same time. The good aspects are
demonstrable through things like this very newsgroup... I think in the
days of printed-matter fandom we might have been a bit more tolerant of
obnoxious fannish behavior as it was a little less conspicuous...
>
> > Conversely, for every Event Horizon or Gothic.net there are dozens
of poorly-thought-out amatuerish websites that profess to be "markets".
Why do I direct bile to such "markets" when I've never, ever written to
a print-zine editor and told them to never send me their rag again?
>
> I had a response like that back in my fanzine days. I remember it
well.
> My first reaction was that the lady in question was having a bad hair
> day, or that she was mistaking my innocuous labor of love for
something else. So I sent her another copy. Her response the second
time was much nastier. Now I had a challenge on my hands. I sent her a
third issue. This time, no response. The fun was over. To this day,
I'll always wonder what caused the violent reaction from a fairly Big-
Name Fan whose address I picked up from another fanzine. But even then,
bad press was better than no press at all.
>
> > Simple, (though it took Reed's post for me to see the
difference...), none of these fanzine editors ever sent out form
letters to all of the writers that they could think of asking for
material with vague promises of possible payment down the road. When
they did solicit material, they took the time to write individual
letters asking for material without pretenses of being a paying market.
Some did evolve into paying markets, but there was always the sense
that a zine publisher was genuinely committed to the toil required
gathering, re-typing, collating, printing, folding, & mailing the
results of their vision. In short, you knew that the person involved
was putting a lot more effort into it than they could ever hope to be
compensated for.
>
> So it's the medium of communication you're disagreeing with, not
> necessarily the content of the message? If one of these spammers were
to contact you politely and individually rather than use the inherent
power of the Internet for a blanket message, then you would treat them
> differently? You know me pretty well, John. I'm not taking potshots
> here. I'm just curious. In the two years or so that I've been on line,
> I've watched the byplay of Usenet folks on a number of newsgroups. I'm
> still trying to formulate an opinion. There are a lot of people who
are scared to death that this form of
literature/communication/information transfer is gonna be the death of
printed work. Couple the Internet with the mega-chains like amazon and
B&N -- you know the arguments.
If e-media replaces the book, it won't be during my lifetime... Don't
get me started on B & N or Amazon.com; that's another thread...
I've had quite a bit of work published on the 'net, in all cases it was
because I found that same fannish spirit present and knew that the
person in question was working their ass off on their site. An
important consideration is that in each case I was approached with a
personal note indicating what the editor wanted and why...
I saw the approach as little different from any number of little
magazines that I buy on a regular basis. There's an inherent politeness
and personal touch in a direct communication that generally speaking
indicates a certain amount of sincerity on the part of an editor. Stuff
like that I always respond politely to even if I don't have time or
willingness to actually contribute...
> Therefore, we applaud the Ash Tree Presses and the Nightshade Presses
> and the other small publishing houses that are taking care with their
> product, seeming to respect their readership. Why aren't us consumers
> taking the same approach to what amounts to New Fandom? Sure, there
are spammers amongst the group, trying to get rich quick somehow, but
then again, aren't we all?
(SPAM WARNING): We should also applaud Silver Salamander Press and
Midnight House... (saw the opening and went for it...)
>
> > Maybe it's the inherent arrogance and laziness of spamming in
search of material that I find so offensive, maybe it's the ease with
which any boob with internet access can score a free web-page and
proclaim himself an "editor"; maybe it's a combination of the above...
>
> Do you remember how Locus began? Four pages, barely legible -- it was
a minimalist fanzine with Charlie Brown trying to find enough genre news
> to fill up those four pages. Was there arrogance there? I dunno. I
agree with a lot of what you say -- if writers (like myself) are really
> interested in producing work that will be recognized for admission
into SFWA or MWA or HWA or some form of group acceptance, then they
will go in that direction. If they are raised on the Internet, learn
from the Internet, feel comfortable with the Internet (and more and
more people are going this route), then we probably have to expect an
electronic variation of fannish behavior. Don't we?
Perhaps the key difference is that the 'net allows rude fanac the most
public forum possible... But you're quite right, we all laughed at
Charlie because there was no way that there was enough "news" to
justify a monthly zine... There's a number of talented people working
on e-zines right now that will likely become very significant in the
field at some not too-distant future. I just hope that it will be due
to books and magazines published in the traditional way. We can always
expect loutish behavior, doesn't mean that we need to condone it.
Again, my most strenuous objections are to (a.) non-paying markets that
spam with a come-on that they'll be "paying writers something sooner or
later". (b.) Electronic markets that pay but demand unreasonable rights
or pay such a paltry amount as to be insulting. (c.)Spammers of any
sort.
>
John (who thinks the "golden age" might actually be RIGHT NOW)
seb phillips
goober,
>maybe you should hone your "research" skills a little more.
Oh yeah, believe me, I can tell from someones email posts when they're a
total goober...
>As for being forced to "wade through" these people's posts, what does that
mean,
>exactly?
Stuff like checking out their site to see if it's better than it sounds,
looking at whose writing is posted there, checking submission guidlines
and that kind of thing. Sure, I won't do it unless I think there's some
reason - I won't check out the site of a patent numbnuts), but I like to be
thorough.
>Does the mere fact of these people's existence bother you? If that's
>the case, being no stranger to obsessive hatred, myself, I probably don't
have
>much room to criticize you.
Well, I like to think it's not purely irrational.
If you set up an e-zine with no intention to (or capability of) promoting
it, what's the point? It's because you like the thought of being an editor.
You can write 'editor' on your CV and think that you're being creative. It
took real dedication to do that with printed zines because no matter how
lazy you were, there was a base level of work required to collate the thing
in the first place. Ezines are simple to knock together, you have to be
seriously lazy to find the whole thing too much effort.
I don't have much time for people who want to do something just because they
like the status that comes with it. The world is full of them (British
industry, for example, is top heavy with folks who are there because the job
title sounds good) and I think they should all be killed with mallets.
In more practical terms, look at the negative response that e-zines are
getting at the moment on this newsgroup - a lot of writers think they are
lower than scum and that nothing good has ever been posted on them. I'm sure
a lot of that is because of these 'editors' that don't take the web or it's
potential seriously.
>I'd say "touche," except I was sorta consumed with running the creative end
of
>Visa's online presence, the last five months. (Yes, *that* Visa.)
Leaving nasty comments aside, I have a question - don't you work with anyone
else on your site? All the paper zines I've known have split the work
between a group of people. OK, there's usually one individual driving the
whole thing, but they have a team of folks beside them. Things slow down
when the main guys not arround, but they don't stop.
>No, the best thing is that "experts" usually only reveal themselves when
some
>clown comes on all condescending.
Did I come over as condecending? I'm sorry, I was aiming for sarcastic.
Besides, I'm not sure I want to get into the concept of an expert in
'jacking off' revealing himself. The 'Carry On' team used to specialise in
that kind of humour, and thankfully they are mostly dead now.
>>Or just shows how many hits you can get with no work at all
>it shows how many hits *I* can get with no work at all, and after a
>hellaciously intense effort, because I know what the fuck I'm doing. Hey,
little
>weenie zine publishers: you can't do this. I promise. Don't even try.
>There, is that better?
Well, now you mention it, yes.
The whole point of my arguement is that the web is seen as an easy way of
publishing but a lot of folks don't realise that you still have to work hard
to promote your site or the whole thing is pointless, it's the same as a
producing a paper magazine and not
distributing any copies.
>> saying 'it's
>>not hard work' is the same as saying
>>'I don't work hard at it.'
>Maybe for you. Not for me. It's so easy it's kind of boring, to tell you
the
>truth. There's a reason I rose as high as I did as fast as I did.
Wow, and yet you still get time to go for a run across the lake every
morning!
Sorry, that really WAS sarcastic, but I couldn't help it...
From the work you described for VISA, I'm not surprised that you say you
don't find web promotion hard. But that's a little like a garage mechanic
saying that car maintainance isn't difficult, or a heart surgeon saying that
anyone should be able to do a basic amputation - I doubt that most ezine
editors have your background and skills.
Besides, you admit you have to put effort in to achieve results, and when
you stopped promoting your site, the hits dropped from 2000 to 200 per day.
So anyone who wants to run a site and maintain that level of interest has to
keep that level of work going. That's what I mean when I say it takes as
much work as you can put in.
>So spare me the lecture, Junior.
Grandpa, as you well know, lectures on this newsgroup are never delivered
for just one person, but for the benefit and advancement of ALL mankind.
Skrybe
news:gBvlNwZuETjeQV...@4ax.com...
The thing is (assuming I've understood the point you're making there) that
the people who are most vocal against ezines are real, getting paid authors.
I know that at least three of the people who've posted to this thread are
writing for a living. I don't know how much they make but they are getting
paid for it. As I understand it they are trying to protect would be writers
from being ripped off. I'll just restate my point from the previous post, if
the ezine creator is honest about what they're doing I see nothing wrong
with it.
Rick Carlson
Greetings, fellow "wannabe's" and everyone else.
I am a computer programmer/analyst with over 18 years of experience writing
software.
I am not "a writer," but I would like to become a writer -- not to start a
new career, but to express myself creatively in a new way.
I have the basic germ of an idea for a story, with interesting characters
that seem to "write themselves" into my mind.
However, "character descriptions do not a story make."
Even if I were to write the best novel possible for the story and chracters,
I would still have a long series of battles to fight before becoming
published. Even that major accomplishment does not guarantee financial
success.
Before any of that occurs, I need to learn how to tell a story, and that
comes with experience.
How do you get experience? Trial and error -- boatloads of the stuff.
How do you recognize and correct errors? You don't. If you knew they were
errors, you wouldn't have written them in the first place, right?
You need feedback from readers other than yourself.
Good feedback.
Constructive criticism from someone who's "been there, done that, bought the
T-shirt and later hocked it to pay rent."
Comments from people you admire, and whose opinions you respect.
Friends, family members, co-workers, and other writers.
In other words, people you know, not anonymous web surfers with nothing
better to do with their time.
The best feedback will generally come from a good editor, if you get that
far in your writing.
Bottom Line: If you are serious about writing, then be serious about
publishing. Otherwise, you're just another hack in the slushpile.