Eric Flint's Writing Seminar
Michael R N Dolbear
{On topic, even if it's adv*rt*s*ng}.
For those of you who hope to become professionally published writers,
or who have already been published but want to know how to advance your
career:
A few months ago, I had a long discussion with several other extremely
successful, widely published, international bestselling authors. The
subject was: "If I were a struggling writer in our current market, what
would I really need to know that only the most successful authors know
about this industry?" When we started talking about the answer to that
question, we realized that there is a vast reservoir of need-to-know
tips, tricks, tactics and industry secrets that no one is telling
you�but that the five us, put together, knew very well.
So, we decided to hold a seminar for new and aspiring writers. This
like no other writing seminar you've ever attended. Unlike other
seminars, we do not propose to teach you how to write. We're not going
to talk about style or grammar or story ideas. We start with the
assumption that you already know enough about writing to at least have
a crack at launching a professional writing career. Instead, we're
going to tell you every bit of insider information we know. That's more
than half a century of industry experience from various points of view
by some of the most highly successful authors there are.
When we started putting down on paper all the information we need to
impart to you, we realized that even at the most intensive pace this
seminar is going to take three days. Those who attend will be put on
the fast track to success with behind the scenes knowledge and skills
you can't get by practicing writing, in a classroom or any workshop.
It's my honest opinion that attending this seminar is the best thing
you can do to further your ambition to become a professional author or
advance your career further if you've already been published.
The seminar will be held in Los Angeles at the Pasadena Convention
Center on March 19-21, 2010.
Do yourself a favor and go to www.superstarswritingseminars.com and
learn all about it.
Eric Flint
--
--Rick Boatright
Loyal Minion
--
Mike D
Eric Ammadon
"How To Get Rich Telling People What They Shouldn't Have To Know"
--
arggh, is it priate day again?
Remus Shepherd
> Center on March 19-21, 2010.
> Do yourself a favor and go to www.superstarswritingseminars.com and
> learn all about it.
> Eric Flint
Hmmn. A few years ago I cornered Eric Flint at a con for a couple
minutes, and he gave me some advice. I took that advice to heart, although
I can't say whether it has helped any or not. (He told me how to query a
publisher that I knew; that publisher hasn't responded yet. He also told
me to avoid a certain agency; I have, but I haven't gotten an agent anywhere
else yet.) So I have no evidence that his advice is good or bad.
I guess all I can vouch for is that the man certainly does have advice
to give.
The website is a bit sensational, and the seminar is pretty expensive,
especially considering the location. (I could afford it, but I can't
imagine many would-be authors could.)
Oh, well, I should have a chance to talk with Brandon Sanderson later
this year. Maybe I'll ask him about his part in this seminar then.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Remus Shepherd
> Michael R N Dolbear <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > From Eric Flint, copied from a Baen's Bar post by --Rick Boatright.
> > The seminar will be held in Los Angeles at the Pasadena Convention
> > Center on March 19-21, 2010.
> > Do yourself a favor and go to www.superstarswritingseminars.com and
> > learn all about it.
> > Eric Flint
> The website is a bit sensational, and the seminar is pretty expensive,
> especially considering the location. (I could afford it, but I can't
> imagine many would-be authors could.)
Whoops! I did some research, and now I want to say, ***'Warning, Will
Robinson!'***
I was curious about why so many names on that website seemed to be
affiliated with the L. Ron Hubbard Writers of the Future. After a bit of
checking I see that *all* the instructors are either judges, organizers,
or winners of the WoF contest.
I don't know if they're all scientologists or not, but the lead name --
Kevin J. Anderson -- certainly is, and his wife is also listed as one of the
instructors.
My impression now is that this seminar will be, at best, some useful
advice peppered in between New Age Scientology bullshit about expanding
your mind. At *worst*, it will be a hard-sell indoctrination to Scientology.
I was curious before but now I wouldn't go near this seminar, and I'd advise
others to steer clear of it also.
If you don't know why Scientology should be avoided whenever possible,
read http://www.xenu.net/ or just google about them. Writers of the Future
has a slightly better reputation: John Scalzi offers a defense of the
contest on his blog (google 'scalzi writers future') as a good thing run
by bad people. That defense may or may not apply to the Pasadena workshop.
I wouldn't take the chance.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Michael R N Dolbear <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> From Eric Flint, copied from a Baen's Bar post by --Rick Boatright.
>>> The seminar will be held in Los Angeles at the Pasadena Convention
>>> Center on March 19-21, 2010.
>>> Do yourself a favor and go to www.superstarswritingseminars.com and
>>> learn all about it.
>>> Eric Flint
>
>> The website is a bit sensational, and the seminar is pretty expensive,
>> especially considering the location. (I could afford it, but I can't
>> imagine many would-be authors could.)
>
> Whoops! I did some research, and now I want to say, ***'Warning, Will
> Robinson!'***
>
> I was curious about why so many names on that website seemed to be
> affiliated with the L. Ron Hubbard Writers of the Future. After a bit of
> checking I see that *all* the instructors are either judges, organizers,
> or winners of the WoF contest.
>
> I don't know if they're all scientologists or not, but the lead name --
> Kevin J. Anderson -- certainly is, and his wife is also listed as one of the
> instructors.
Eric Flint is definitely not a scientologist.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
James Nicoll
Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure people.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Remus Shepherd
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >Remus Shepherd wrote:
> >> I don't know if they're all scientologists or not,
> >
> Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure people.
One is a political identification, the other is a religion cum
psychological problem. I'm sure a person can be both. :)
But thanks, Sea Wasp. I couldn't find proof one way or another.
Eric Ammadon
All the stuff they claim they're going to teach you?
It wouldn't be necessary if the industry wasn't hosed.
Unfortunately not only do you have to write great stuff, you have to
play games too.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Name an industry where this is not true -- that is, not only do you
have to do X job well, but you need to know how to convince people that
you do it well enough for them to pay you? I can't think of one.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Remus Shepherd wrote:
>>>> I don't know if they're all scientologists or not,
>>> Eric Flint is definitely not a scientologist.
>
>> Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure people.
>
> One is a political identification, the other is a religion cum
> psychological problem. I'm sure a person can be both. :)
>
> But thanks, Sea Wasp. I couldn't find proof one way or another.
>
My impression has always been that despite the Hubbard association, the
award itself has been reasonably straightforward in terms of its
evaluation of the fiction presented, not particularly Scientologist in
its approach.
I suspect that Eric would simply MOCK any Scientological content. He's
a deadly pragmatic kind of guy. Fun to hang out with, in my experience,
and I wish I had more opportunities to do so.
David Friedman
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> > Eric Flint is definitely not a scientologist.
>
> Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure people.
Patriotic American Trotskyite, I think--an odd and interesting
combination.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hj7r4q$j34$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>> Eric Flint is definitely not a scientologist.
>> Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure people.
>
> Patriotic American Trotskyite, I think--an odd and interesting
> combination.
>
He's a VERY interesting man to talk to.
Brian M. Scott
in hj7opf$2ft$1...@reader1.panix.com:
[...]
> I was curious about why so many names on that website seemed to be
> affiliated with the L. Ron Hubbard Writers of the Future. After a bit
> of checking I see that *all* the instructors are either judges,
> organizers, or winners of the WoF contest.
> I don't know if they're all scientologists or not, but the lead name
> --
> Kevin J. Anderson -- certainly is, and his wife is also listed as one of
> the instructors.
The notion of Eric Flint as a Scientologist is ludicrous. And I believe
that Brandon Sanderson is a Mormon.
[...]
Brian
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon wrote:
>> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> Remus Shepherd wrote:
>>>>>> I don't know if they're all scientologists or not,
>>>>> Eric Flint is definitely not a scientologist.
>>>> Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure people.
>>> One is a political identification, the other is a religion cum
>>> psychological problem. I'm sure a person can be both. :)
>>>
>>> But thanks, Sea Wasp. I couldn't find proof one way or another.
>>>
>>> ... ...
>>> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
>>> Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
>>
>>
>> All the stuff they claim they're going to teach you?
>>
>> It wouldn't be necessary if the industry wasn't hosed.
>>
>> Unfortunately not only do you have to write great stuff, you have to
>> play games too.
>>
>
> Name an industry where this is not true -- that is, not only do you
>have to do X job well, but you need to know how to convince people that
>you do it well enough for them to pay you? I can't think of one.
Name any other industry where they are stupid enough to expect you to
do the work before you're paid, turn it in as a job application, then
wait some undetermined time until they make their choice before
sending out other job applications.
"You must submit, resistance is futile."
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
There are quite a few industries where you are, in fact, expected to do
a lot of demo work before anyone picks you. And many of those don't even
have an organized way for you to apply to the Big Boys -- you can't even
GET to the Big Boys until you either already MADE it, or make The Right
Connections.
Eric Ammadon
Show me one that has a "no simultaneous submissions" rule.
It's bullshit, I find it offensive, and I am utterly amazed that human
beings can be sufficiently oppressed to put up with it. The
publishing industry has been a buyer's market for too damn long and
there has never been a surplus of *good* writing product, only a
shortage of people competent to identify it quickly and with
certainty.
Pretty soon here we're gonna wake up and fix that.
Dan Goodman
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > > Remus Shepherd wrote:
> > >> I don't know if they're all scientologists or not,
> > >
> > > Eric Flint is definitely not a scientologist.
>
> > Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure
> > people.
>
> One is a political identification, the other is a religion cum
> psychological problem. I'm sure a person can be both. :)
Which is which?
--
Dan Goodman
Journal at:
dsgood.livejournal.com
dsgood.dreamwidth.org
dsgood.insanejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I completely disagree, in that I think there's ALWAYS been more "good"
-- as in "I, as a publisher, could make money from this" -- product out
there than gets published. Probably a LOT more. Much of it is either not
being submitted at all (whether because the person is such a wrongheaded
fool as to feel that a business can't set its own terms of operation,
and doesn't like the terms, or because -- much more commonly -- the IDEA
of actually sending their work for potential rejection scares them), are
being submitted to the wrong people, or -- the other common case after
"too scared to send the work in" -- is buried in a mountain of slush and
gets missed.
Given that each and every publishing house, even WITH the limitation of
No Simultaneous Submissions (which, of course, quite a few people ignore
anyway), has such immense slush submitted to it every year that some
have simply given up, and now only accept agented manuscripts, and that
the ones which still take unsolicited manuscripts take many months to
YEARS to get through the slush -- this is a very difficult problem to
solve.
If you eliminated the No Simultaneous submissions rule, then the likely
outcome is that, while some authors would continue to follow it anyway
(a systematic approach or they feel only certain publishers are a
worthwhile market), you would MULTIPLY the slush pile for ALL publishers
by a factor of ten, because they would now be getting the submissions
they normally get PLUS the ones of their competitors.
>
> Pretty soon here we're gonna wake up and fix that.
Describe an actual, practical process for doing that. There are two
basic routes of publication; one is some form of self-publishing, be it
putting stuff on the Web or going to a vanity press, printing the thing
physically, and trying to promo it. The other is to have a regular
publisher with established publicity, distribution, and SELECTION AND
EDITING capabilities, publish your book. I emphasize SELECTION AND
EDITING because it's what you almost NEVER get in the first type, either
the Web or print versions.
The first sub-variant can be seen at Fanfiction.net and similar sites
which take fan-original, or even completely original, fiction and put it
up for other people to read. These variants fail on TWO fronts. First,
and most importantly, they have no selection filter. A given randomly
chosen story, even narrowed down to some particular subgenre, has not
been "vetted" by anyone except the author and, maybe, a small circle of
friends. (a VERY few authors in the "put it on Fanfic.net or otherwise
on the Web" category are, in fact, pro authors or have real editing
people to help them, but they are down in the noise). So what you have
is a fully-posted slushpile. There are gems in there -- yes, even in the
fanfic there are stories of brilliance and warmth and ideas and human
impact that are fully the equal of any published stories sitting on
bookshelves -- but you won't find more than a tiny fraction of them in a
lifetime if you have to search "blind", i.e., not knowing that J.Random
Author is good or bad.
The ONLY mechanism for publicity here is generally "word of mouth".
Word of mouth is great, if the "word" comes from the right mouth. I.e.,
if Oprah or the Today Show mention your story, you are now coining money
(or, if there's no money involved, getting website hits) hand over fist.
But if it starts with you and your friends, experience shows that it
usually DIES OUT only a link or two out unless your friends are heavily
connected with other heavily connected groups.
You can try to self-promote, but see below for more on that.
This sub-variant also has no mechanism generally available for paying
the authors, and the few mechanisms available (e.g.,Paypal) are clumsy
and not at all suited to the individual author/reader's needs in several
ways.
The "Self-published" variant does at least have the virtue, currently,
of having many fewer competitors; even though far more people are going
that route these days than ever before, the number is orders of
magnitude lower than the number of new fiction pieces posted on the web.
(it is not unusual for a particularly popular SINGLE SHOW to generate
hundreds of thousands of individual stories from it)
This is unfortunately completely negated by the fact that it is almost
100% UNAVAILABLE for the would-be browser to find. There isn't an online
set of websites that aggregate all the self-published books in
easily-located form and give you the ability to page through it to see
if it's self-published dreck or brilliance.
Thus, this required self-promotion. I've been playing around in that
area with my own work lately, but the level of effort necessary for a
self-published book is vastly greater. You will be spending many, many
hours of non-paid work trying to get your book into stores, onto shows,
podcasts, mentioned in papers or other websites. You will have to do a
lot of traveling. You will have to be willing to expend a lot of your
resources to have a CHANCE for your self-published book to sell well --
and there's no guarantee it EVER will, because your self-published book
may, well, suck, or you may simply never find the right place and time
and people to get the ball rolling.
The second approach -- the standard publishing one -- has its
limitations, but at least it does have an excellent track record for
finding and publishing readable books, and sometimes brilliant ones.
Even the most sneered-at "real publishers" have an output that is vastly
better in quality and usually production values than any vanity press
ever will.
Moreover, any established publisher has connections to distributors
(which will put the books into Amazon and into bookstores country or
even worldwide), publicists (who do do SOME work on even the titles for
first-time unknown authors), other publishers, printers, etc., with
established relationships with these other businesses that give them
excellent rates on these services, permitting production and
distribution of the book at a lower cost than a typical vanity press.
But you have the problems such as...
Slush. This is the biggie. For separating literally MILLIONS of
manuscripts into literary gems, serviceable literary lumber, steel, and
stone, and the vast tailings of failure of one sort or another;
preferably, sort out the tailings into the small percentage that show
promise enough to give a personal response, and those which are good for
OTHER markets but not yours, and those which are, well, not showing
promise and just get the form letter.
This is a process which requires reading comprehension and an
understanding of what works in writing. For the low-level separation you
can use fairly low-paid people, but not minimum wagers by a long shot,
if you want them to have a pretty high probability of not discarding a
good manuscript just because it doesn't meet with their personal
preferences.
Currently, therefore, this process cannot be automated except for the
most egregiously bad submissions. You can junk those who don't fit your
submission guidelines -- didn't include a SASE for return if you require
it, didn't format the document in a proper manner, etc. -- as a quick
pass, but this won't kill off the majority.
So automation is out until you get not only AI, but LITERARY AI. That
is, an artificial intelligence that not only actually understands human
language, but understands human STORIES.
This leaves you with needing human beings to sort through millions of
manuscripts -- and dealing with the limitations of human beings in
reading speed, attention span, and boredom/"green light syndrome", in
which they get so habituated to the Suckitude that they miss a gem going by.
What's your response goal? If I send in a story to 10 publishers
(having done away with the no simultaneous submissions), how long do you
want it to be before the publisher has read and responded to the
submission? If you, as you imply, get rid of "no simultaneous
submissions", you are currently implying a response time from submission
to acceptance or rejection of something like TEN YEARS.
If you want something reasonable -- say a year (and some authors think
THAT is too long, and I'd agree at least in the No Simultaneous
situation, but that's the way it currently is) -- you need TEN TIMES as
many slush readers, and secondary readers/editors to take the sorted
stuff from the first group and go over it more carefully to see if it's
still not really good enough, or really worth the effort to publish or
at least see if it can be fixed up.
Ten times as many employees JUST TO GET THE SAME NUMBER OF MANUSCRIPTS
FOR PUBLICATION, mind you. If you want to assume that somehow more gems
are being missed, or more would be submitted, under the different
system, so that there would end up being more published overall, then
you need to increase employees all the way up the chain. Either way,
you've just added a **HUGE** overhead onto the process that wasn't there
before. $50-$100 dollar hardbacks, baby! And that's for FICTION books;
once fiction goes that way, double or triple the price of all those
speciality books that already cost in the hundreds.
And THEN you have the legal issues. Publisher A AND Publisher B have
both been submitted Novel C, and both want novel C. This is nice for the
author but a pain for the publishers to negotiate. Yes, sometimes there
are "bids", but those are done usually by agents with agented manuscripts.
The combination is a reason why all publishers use agents, and some
(and especially producers of media stuff) use ONLY agents to get
material. The agent performs the function of slush reader, but does so
only to find enough authors worth being represented that he or she feels
they can represent efficiently. Once they've reached what they think
is their limit, they don't slog through the dross any more (until some
of their clients leave or die). But an established agent is someone
who's demonstrated that they understand what the publishers want -- and
different publishers want different things. An agented manuscript is a
guarantee that the work in question is at, or sufficiently near,
professional level that it deserves very serious consideration by the
top-level editors. This saves everyone a lot of time and effort.
Now, there may be some ways to change the process, but I don't see any
that actually IMPROVE the overall situation much. There are a huge
number of legal and practical hurdles to overcome in the business no
matter what you do.
But if you have an actual practical method for so doing, by all means
go ahead.
Remus Shepherd
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:24:15 +0000, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote
> > --
> > Kevin J. Anderson -- certainly is, and his wife is also listed as one of
> > the instructors.
> The notion of Eric Flint as a Scientologist is ludicrous. And I believe
> that Brandon Sanderson is a Mormon.
Scientology is the kind of 'religion' where you can self-identify as
another religion at the same time. Believing in volcano-borne energy
leeches does not conflict with the teachings of Joeseph Smith.
Remus Shepherd
> All the stuff they claim they're going to teach you?
> It wouldn't be necessary if the industry wasn't hosed.
> Unfortunately not only do you have to write great stuff, you have to
> play games too.
I agree with you Eric, on all counts. But this is the industry I have
chosen. All I can do is try and excel on their terms.
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>> All the stuff they claim they're going to teach you?
>
>> It wouldn't be necessary if the industry wasn't hosed.
>
>> Unfortunately not only do you have to write great stuff, you have to
>> play games too.
>
> I agree with you Eric, on all counts. But this is the industry I have
>chosen. All I can do is try and excel on their terms.
I understand your situation and I acknowledge your pain.
It is my opinion that one of these days there will be a better way for
writers to publish their work than "no simultaneous submissions".
Eric Ammadon
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:24:15 +0000, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote
>> > I don't know if they're all scientologists or not, but the lead name
>> > --
>> > Kevin J. Anderson -- certainly is, and his wife is also listed as one of
>> > the instructors.
>
>> The notion of Eric Flint as a Scientologist is ludicrous. And I believe
>> that Brandon Sanderson is a Mormon.
>
> Scientology is the kind of 'religion' where you can self-identify as
>another religion at the same time. Believing in volcano-borne energy
>leeches does not conflict with the teachings of Joeseph Smith.
It might be fun to write a novel about a guy whose profession was the
deprogramming of scientologists. It would be easy to fill it with
lots of action, but it might be quicker just to publish funny pictures
of Mohammed and dig foxholes around your yard.
Eric Ammadon
That is to be expected from someone who is ensconced within the
current establishment.
> in that I think there's ALWAYS been more "good"
>-- as in "I, as a publisher, could make money from this" -- product out
>there than gets published. Probably a LOT more.
I agree that the publishing industry has, as far as I can tell, always
been fairly inept at weeding, because I have read a lot of published
novels that I've thrown in the garbage because they were *so* bad I
didn't want to be responsible for anyone else's wasting their time
should I donate them to the library.
There have never been enough truly good books to keep even a few
publishers busy printing their initial editions.
> If you eliminated the No Simultaneous submissions rule, then the likely
>outcome is that, while some authors would continue to follow it anyway
>(a systematic approach or they feel only certain publishers are a
>worthwhile market), you would MULTIPLY the slush pile for ALL publishers
>by a factor of ten, because they would now be getting the submissions
>they normally get PLUS the ones of their competitors.
Oh, those poor inept babies, writers should feel sorry for them and
starve as penance for their sins!
> Describe an actual, practical process for doing that.
Rather than to offer you the solution I will simply go off and
implement it, that gives me the added enjoyment of watching as inept
publishers go bankrupt one by one and their lackeys turn to flipping
burgers.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Rather than to offer you the solution I will simply go off and
> implement it,
By all means do so. But let me know when you do, as I want to observe
either its stellar success or, as I would far more expect, its
entertaining crash-and-burn.
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon wrote:
>
>> Rather than to offer you the solution I will simply go off and
>> implement it,
>
> By all means do so. But let me know when you do, as I want to observe
>either its stellar success or, as I would far more expect, its
>entertaining crash-and-burn.
You will have the chance to observe it from its early stages. Don't
hold your breath since it will take time, do save money from your
current publishing arrangements in the meantime.
James Nicoll
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> >Remus Shepherd wrote:
>> >> I don't know if they're all scientologists or not,
>> >
>> > Eric Flint is definitely not a scientologist.
>
>> Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure people.
>
> One is a political identification, the other is a religion cum
>psychological problem. I'm sure a person can be both. :)
>
> But thanks, Sea Wasp. I couldn't find proof one way or another.
As I recall, Writers of the Future has a custom of recruiting non-Clams
as judges. Wikipedia lists the following as notable writing judges:
Algis Budrys, Gregory Benford, Kevin J. Anderson, Orson Scott Card,
Jack Williamson, Nina Kiriki Hoffman, Brian Herbert, K. D. Wentworth,
Tim Powers, Robert J. Sawyer, Frederik Pohl, Jerry Pournelle, Andre
Norton, Larry Niven, and Anne McCaffrey.
Aside from maybe Anderson, I think none of those people are Scientologists.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hj7ros$637$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Remus Shepherd wrote:
>>>>> I don't know if they're all scientologists or not,
>>>> Eric Flint is definitely not a scientologist.
>>> Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure people.
>> One is a political identification, the other is a religion cum
>> psychological problem. I'm sure a person can be both. :)
>>
>> But thanks, Sea Wasp. I couldn't find proof one way or another.
>
> As I recall, Writers of the Future has a custom of recruiting non-Clams
> as judges. Wikipedia lists the following as notable writing judges:
>
> Algis Budrys, Gregory Benford, Kevin J. Anderson, Orson Scott Card,
> Jack Williamson, Nina Kiriki Hoffman, Brian Herbert, K. D. Wentworth,
> Tim Powers, Robert J. Sawyer, Frederik Pohl, Jerry Pournelle, Andre
> Norton, Larry Niven, and Anne McCaffrey.
>
> Aside from maybe Anderson, I think none of those people are Scientologists.
Not YET! (cue evil Undead LRon Laughter)
James Nicoll
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <hj7ros$637$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> Remus Shepherd wrote:
>>>>>> I don't know if they're all scientologists or not,
>>>>> Eric Flint is definitely not a scientologist.
>>>> Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure people.
>>> One is a political identification, the other is a religion cum
>>> psychological problem. I'm sure a person can be both. :)
>>>
>>> But thanks, Sea Wasp. I couldn't find proof one way or another.
>>
>> As I recall, Writers of the Future has a custom of recruiting non-Clams
>> as judges. Wikipedia lists the following as notable writing judges:
>>
>> Algis Budrys, Gregory Benford, Kevin J. Anderson, Orson Scott Card,
>> Jack Williamson, Nina Kiriki Hoffman, Brian Herbert, K. D. Wentworth,
>> Tim Powers, Robert J. Sawyer, Frederik Pohl, Jerry Pournelle, Andre
>> Norton, Larry Niven, and Anne McCaffrey.
>>
>> Aside from maybe Anderson, I think none of those people are Scientologists.
>
> Not YET! (cue evil Undead LRon Laughter)
>
Bill Swears
I consider it to be an irrational demand. It only applies to unagented
submissions, since agents simsub without concern, and you can query as
many agents as you please.
I attended a class with Margaret Weiss almost twenty years ago, and she
recommended sim-subbing anyway, but being very conscientious about
pulling your work from publishers who are still looking once you've made
a sale. Personally, I've adhered to submission requirements, or sought
permission to send out my story to other places as well.
Bill
--
Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise
your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
Remus Shepherd
> The "no simultaneous submissions" mantra is ignored by some authors, and
> I consider it to be an irrational demand. It only applies to unagented
> submissions, since agents simsub without concern, and you can query as
> many agents as you please.
Unless the agent asks for exclusive submissions only, which I am finding
that many of the top agents do. But then, being at the top has its
privileges, I suppose.
David Friedman
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> If you eliminated the No Simultaneous submissions rule, then the likely
> outcome is that, while some authors would continue to follow it anyway
> (a systematic approach or they feel only certain publishers are a
> worthwhile market), you would MULTIPLY the slush pile for ALL publishers
> by a factor of ten, because they would now be getting the submissions
> they normally get PLUS the ones of their competitors.
Along these lines, it's worth noting the practice in academic journals.
In most fields, simultaneous submission is not permitted. The one big
exception I know of is law. It's routine to submit an article to a bunch
of law reviews. If you get an acceptance from one, you then withdraw the
submission from all reviews that you think no better than the one that
accepted you and inform the ones that are better that you have an
acceptance from journal X, and would like a definite yes or no from them
in the fairly near future.
What's the difference? Almost all academic journals are faculty edited,
so reading submissions is a cost. Law journals are student edited, and
reading submissions is part of the student's education. Since the labor
for reading submissions is more or less free--arguably costs less than
nothing--a system where each submission is likely to get read by
multiple editors isn't a problem.
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> > If you eliminated the No Simultaneous submissions rule, then the likely
> >outcome is that, while some authors would continue to follow it anyway
> >(a systematic approach or they feel only certain publishers are a
> >worthwhile market), you would MULTIPLY the slush pile for ALL publishers
> >by a factor of ten, because they would now be getting the submissions
> >they normally get PLUS the ones of their competitors.
>
> Oh, those poor inept babies, writers should feel sorry for them and
> starve as penance for their sins!
Or in other words, you aren't interested in actually responding to the
argument. You would rather ignore it while striking a posture of moral
superiority.
Brian M. Scott
<re...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:hj9pgb$gkl$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:24:15 +0000, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote
>>> I don't know if they're all scientologists or not, but
>>> the lead name -- Kevin J. Anderson -- certainly is, and
>>> his wife is also listed as one of the instructors.
>> The notion of Eric Flint as a Scientologist is ludicrous.
>> And I believe that Brandon Sanderson is a Mormon.
> Scientology is the kind of 'religion' where you can
> self-identify as another religion at the same time.
> Believing in volcano-borne energy leeches does not
> conflict with the teachings of Joeseph Smith.
Perhaps not technically, but the LDS Church doesn't
encourage its members to join other churches. I can imagine
a declared Mormon being sympathetic to some specific
scientological ideas, but a Mormon Scientologist strikes me
as rather unlikely.
Brian
Suzanne Blom
"Eric Ammadon" <n...@spam.thankee> wrote in message
news:g0vel5hk0992aguj3...@4ax.com...
maybe $100,000 and at least four years of your life fulfilling minimum entry
requirements with absolutely no guarentee that you will ever actually be
able to get a job in the field. And then there are unpaid internships...
Looked at that way, writing's entry requirements are both logical and not at
all onerous. I feel better already.
John W Kennedy
> Along these lines, it's worth noting the practice in academic journals.
> In most fields, simultaneous submission is not permitted. The one big
> exception I know of is law. It's routine to submit an article to a bunch
> of law reviews. If you get an acceptance from one, you then withdraw the
> submission from all reviews that you think no better than the one that
> accepted you and inform the ones that are better that you have an
> acceptance from journal X, and would like a definite yes or no from them
> in the fairly near future.
>
> What's the difference? Almost all academic journals are faculty edited,
> so reading submissions is a cost. Law journals are student edited, and
> reading submissions is part of the student's education. Since the labor
> for reading submissions is more or less free--arguably costs less than
> nothing--a system where each submission is likely to get read by
> multiple editors isn't a problem.
And, of course, most of the "slush" submitted to law journals isn't
mind-numbing, illiterate twaddle or psychotic sexual phantasy. I've not
read slush for an SF publisher, but I've read slush for a professional
theatre, and I imagine it's much the same.
James A. Donald
<re...@panix.com> wrote:
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > >Remus Shepherd wrote:
> > >> I don't know if they're all scientologists or not,
> > >
> > > Eric Flint is definitely not a scientologist.
>
> > Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure people.
> One is a political identification, the other is a religion cum
> psychological problem. I'm sure a person can be both. :)
Logically it is possible to be both, but Trotskyism has the
psychological characteristics of a religion, and Scientology is an
incompatible religion.
Analogously, it is possible to be a transnational progressive and a
unitarian universalist, indeed if you are a unitarian universalist,
progressivism is almost mandatory, but one cannot be both a
transnational progressive and a born again Christian.
James A. Donald
> another religion at the same time. Believing in volcano-borne energy
> leeches does not conflict with the teachings of Joeseph Smith.
It does conflict, logically and emotionally.
David Friedman
"Suzanne Blom" <sue...@execpc.com> wrote:
On the other hand, they don't prohibit simultaneous applications to
different employers.
Eric Ammadon
>In article <i4ugl5hjh430mrpce...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>
>> > If you eliminated the No Simultaneous submissions rule, then the likely
>> >outcome is that, while some authors would continue to follow it anyway
>> >(a systematic approach or they feel only certain publishers are a
>> >worthwhile market), you would MULTIPLY the slush pile for ALL publishers
>> >by a factor of ten, because they would now be getting the submissions
>> >they normally get PLUS the ones of their competitors.
>>
>> Oh, those poor inept babies, writers should feel sorry for them and
>> starve as penance for their sins!
>
>Or in other words, you aren't interested in actually responding to the
>argument. You would rather ignore it while striking a posture of moral
>superiority.
In other words I don't think there is, or can be, any rational
argument in favor of the "no simultaneous submissions" rule except
that it relieves publishers from the possibility of needing to engage
in a bidding war for anything truly good.
Most manuscripts are not truly good. They can't possibly be, because
most of the books on sellers' shelves are not truly good, they are not
even much past mediocre on the whole.
As a potential book purchaser I reject 99% of all books offered based
on the cover blurb and the first few pages within about 60 seconds.
The remainder I begin to read, on the whole that seldom takes more
than a day. Then I place the book on my shelf or in a donation box.
Yet publishers would have us believe they are so overwhelmed they are
unable to keep up. What they are, in my opinion, is afraid to reject
the obviously unqualified immediately. If they are running a
hand-holding service instead of a publishing business they are going
about it lamentably.
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <i4ugl5hjh430mrpce...@4ax.com>,
> > Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> >
> >> > If you eliminated the No Simultaneous submissions rule, then the likely
> >> >outcome is that, while some authors would continue to follow it anyway
> >> >(a systematic approach or they feel only certain publishers are a
> >> >worthwhile market), you would MULTIPLY the slush pile for ALL publishers
> >> >by a factor of ten, because they would now be getting the submissions
> >> >they normally get PLUS the ones of their competitors.
> >>
> >> Oh, those poor inept babies, writers should feel sorry for them and
> >> starve as penance for their sins!
> >
> >Or in other words, you aren't interested in actually responding to the
> >argument. You would rather ignore it while striking a posture of moral
> >superiority.
>
> In other words I don't think there is, or can be, any rational
> argument in favor of the "no simultaneous submissions" rule except
> that it relieves publishers from the possibility of needing to engage
> in a bidding war for anything truly good.
How about the argument that was just given and that you ignored in your
reply--that reading slush is a cost, and without the rule against
simultaneous submissions publishers would have to read several times as
much slush.
What would your response be if someone proposed a different way of
building your house, say, or doing some other large project--that would
take three times as much of your work--and when you objected he came
back with "Oh, you poor inept baby, we should feel sorry for you?"
> Most manuscripts are not truly good. They can't possibly be, because
> most of the books on sellers' shelves are not truly good, they are not
> even much past mediocre on the whole.
The problem with such a statement is that it assumes an objective
standard of "good." There are lots of books that, in my judgement, are
worse than mine, but that I think a publisher would reasonably expect to
sell better than mine--because most readers don't share my tastes.
> As a potential book purchaser I reject 99% of all books offered based
> on the cover blurb and the first few pages within about 60 seconds.
> The remainder I begin to read, on the whole that seldom takes more
> than a day. Then I place the book on my shelf or in a donation box.
>
> Yet publishers would have us believe they are so overwhelmed they are
> unable to keep up.
Publishers would have us believe that having to read several times as
much slush would make their job harder. That's a perfectly reasonable
thing to believe.
> What they are, in my opinion, is afraid to reject
> the obviously unqualified immediately. If they are running a
> hand-holding service instead of a publishing business they are going
> about it lamentably.
And you offer that opinion on the basis of profound ignorance--you
haven't, I gathered, been a publisher, worked for a publisher, or had
any other experience on which you could ground it.
Eric Ammadon
Tough luck, every business has costs. A profit is added to the cost
and the customer pays the resulting price or goes elsewhere.
There are at least two markets for written work. One is the print
publishing industry. The publishing industry is a middleman that
sells (through distributors) to the actual customer, the reading
public.
In the past, physical hardcopy was the only available medium in which
the actual customer could purchase written works. That time is gone.
In the past, artists and artisans could only sell their work through
galleries or other resellers. Now there is a thriving movement within
the artisan community to sell direct to the customer via the web.
Artisans are bright enough to cut out the middleman. Writers
apparently are not, preferring instead to whine about their inability
to "get published".
You will certainly bring up the failure of the self-publishing
approach. It is easy to self-publish, tens of thousands of blogs are
self-published on a constant basis. They are read by a good many
regular followers. The problem with self-publishing is the idea of
getting paid for it. Mechanisms are necessary for monetary exchange,
and the value perceived needs to be sufficient for the customer to
make a purchase.
On an individual basis self-publishing lacks sufficient draw. On a
collective basis that need not be the case. It may be impractical for
individual writers to cut out the middleman entirely but it may be
extremely practical and profitable for writers to find a middleman
that offers a better deal.
>What would your response be if someone proposed a different way of
>building your house, say, or doing some other large project--that would
>take three times as much of your work--and when you objected he came
>back with "Oh, you poor inept baby, we should feel sorry for you?"
The did exactly that but I did not waste my time objecting because I
am not a poor inept baby. I read the building codes that applied and
built my house myself, from the ground up, plumbing, electrical,
framing, siding, roofing, everything except pouring the foundation and
hanging the drywall, resulting in a better quality home for a small
fraction of the cost.
>> Most manuscripts are not truly good. They can't possibly be, because
>> most of the books on sellers' shelves are not truly good, they are not
>> even much past mediocre on the whole.
>
>The problem with such a statement is that it assumes an objective
>standard of "good." There are lots of books that, in my judgement, are
>worse than mine, but that I think a publisher would reasonably expect to
>sell better than mine--because most readers don't share my tastes.
I have not read your book. I could read it as if I was a publisher,
or read it as a friend wishing to help you. It is my intent to take
the second approach once more pressing tasks are dealt with. If that
is an error on my part feel free to let me know, I can have something
for you today if that's all you're after.
>> As a potential book purchaser I reject 99% of all books offered based
>> on the cover blurb and the first few pages within about 60 seconds.
>> The remainder I begin to read, on the whole that seldom takes more
>> than a day. Then I place the book on my shelf or in a donation box.
>>
>> Yet publishers would have us believe they are so overwhelmed they are
>> unable to keep up.
>
>Publishers would have us believe that having to read several times as
>much slush would make their job harder. That's a perfectly reasonable
>thing to believe.
Sure, I cry crocodile tears every time I hear how tough they have it,
but that doesn't mean I'll take up the slack for them.
>> What they are, in my opinion, is afraid to reject
>> the obviously unqualified immediately. If they are running a
>> hand-holding service instead of a publishing business they are going
>> about it lamentably.
>
>And you offer that opinion on the basis of profound ignorance--you
>haven't, I gathered, been a publisher, worked for a publisher, or had
>any other experience on which you could ground it.
An economics professor who is too emotionally involved with a need to
"get published" to perform a rudimentary market analysis throwing the
term "profound ignorance" around is laughable.
Consider the actual market, who is the customer, who are the
middlemen, who are the suppliers of product that is being packaged,
distributed, and sold. Consider the writer as a seller, when there is
a vast oversupply of sellers (too many manuscripts) it's a buyer's
market and the price goes down. The solution to that is not hunkering
down and whining (selling cheap because it's a buyer's market), it's
to either reduce the supply or increase the demand. Demand cannot be
increased when there are rules like "no simultaneous submissions" to
hold it down. The alternative is to increase the market from a small
publishing industry to a large reading public.
Or not, I'm not sure why I should care really. If I want people to
read what I write I can give it away.
Suzanne Blom
"Eric Ammadon" <n...@spam.thankee> wrote in message
> In other words I don't think there is, or can be, any rational
> argument in favor of the "no simultaneous submissions" rule except
> that it relieves publishers from the possibility of needing to engage
> in a bidding war for anything truly good.
>
> Most manuscripts are not truly good. They can't possibly be, because
> most of the books on sellers' shelves are not truly good, they are not
> even much past mediocre on the whole.
>
> As a potential book purchaser I reject 99% of all books offered based
> on the cover blurb and the first few pages within about 60 seconds.
> The remainder I begin to read, on the whole that seldom takes more
> than a day. Then I place the book on my shelf or in a donation box.
>
Um, let's see. If one spends one minute on each and every manuscript, no
more, not even for those one wishes to accept, then in a 24/7 year with no
potty breaks, one looks at 525,600 manuscripts, which might actually be
enough to read all the slush. More realistically, one could not look at
more than about 200,000 even at the one per minute rate. By this point,
though, I rather strongly suspect that one's brain would have fried to the
point a good manuscript would not register or, if it did, it would only be
an irritant. "What! I'm supposed to read more of this?!? It's trying to
ruin my schedule."
Suzanne Blom
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-A25E3C.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com...
Eric Ammadon
Realistically, one might hire enough employees to cover the workload,
or take other measures usual in businesses, not including making
ridiculous demands on the suppliers of the goods they wish to sell.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Realistically, this would drive the cost of the books (which of course
must cover the slush-reading costs along with everything else) sky-high.
$50 paperbacks, yeah baby!
Eric Ammadon
I disagree. But what the hell, they're already pushing $10.
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> >How about the argument that was just given and that you ignored in your
> >reply--that reading slush is a cost, and without the rule against
> >simultaneous submissions publishers would have to read several times as
> >much slush.
>
> Tough luck, every business has costs. A profit is added to the cost
> and the customer pays the resulting price or goes elsewhere.
Or, alternatively, the business operates in ways that keep down the
cost, in order to be able to sell at a price which enough customers are
willing to pay. This particular business keeps down the cost by not
allowing simultaneous submissions, thus avoiding a lot of wasted
effort--five editors reading the same manuscript.
...
> >What would your response be if someone proposed a different way of
> >building your house, say, or doing some other large project--that would
> >take three times as much of your work--and when you objected he came
> >back with "Oh, you poor inept baby, we should feel sorry for you?"
>
> The did exactly that but I did not waste my time objecting because I
> am not a poor inept baby. I read the building codes that applied and
> built my house myself, from the ground up, plumbing, electrical,
> framing, siding, roofing, everything except pouring the foundation and
> hanging the drywall, resulting in a better quality home for a small
> fraction of the cost.
Yet you object to the publishers doing the equivalent--running their
business in the way that holds down the cost, instead of running it in
the way that would be more convenient for you as a potential provider of
one input.
> >> Most manuscripts are not truly good. They can't possibly be, because
> >> most of the books on sellers' shelves are not truly good, they are not
> >> even much past mediocre on the whole.
> >
> >The problem with such a statement is that it assumes an objective
> >standard of "good." There are lots of books that, in my judgement, are
> >worse than mine, but that I think a publisher would reasonably expect to
> >sell better than mine--because most readers don't share my tastes.
>
> I have not read your book. I could read it as if I was a publisher,
> or read it as a friend wishing to help you. It is my intent to take
> the second approach once more pressing tasks are dealt with. If that
> is an error on my part feel free to let me know, I can have something
> for you today if that's all you're after.
I don't see the relevance of that. If you read _Harald_, I hope you will
do it neither as a publisher nor as a friend but as someone reading for
enjoyment--and will stop if you decide you aren't going to enjoy it. If
you read _Salamander_ as a beta reader, then useful suggestions are
indeed in order.
But my point wasn't about how you do or don't read either book. It was
about why your comment about the books on the shelves was either wrong
or irrelevant. Publishers aren't in existence to please you (or me), so
the fact that they publish books that you find mediocre doesn't mean
that they aren't doing a good job of filtering--finding books that a
significant number of people will like.
...
> >Publishers would have us believe that having to read several times as
> >much slush would make their job harder. That's a perfectly reasonable
> >thing to believe.
> Sure, I cry crocodile tears every time I hear how tough they have it,
> but that doesn't mean I'll take up the slack for them.
You have no obligation to submit your manuscript to a publisher. They
offer to do business with you on specified terms, you accept or not as
you like.
> >> What they are, in my opinion, is afraid to reject
> >> the obviously unqualified immediately. If they are running a
> >> hand-holding service instead of a publishing business they are going
> >> about it lamentably.
> >
> >And you offer that opinion on the basis of profound ignorance--you
> >haven't, I gathered, been a publisher, worked for a publisher, or had
> >any other experience on which you could ground it.
>
> An economics professor who is too emotionally involved with a need to
> "get published" to perform a rudimentary market analysis throwing the
> term "profound ignorance" around is laughable.
I've gotten published--six books so far, four or five of which are in
print. And I've self-published a book, and sold (I'm guessing, since I
don't keep careful track) about two thousand copies of it over the year.
...
> Or not, I'm not sure why I should care really. If I want people to
> read what I write I can give it away.
That isn't sufficient--you also have to write stuff people want to read,
and somehow inform enough of the people who want to read such stuff that
it's there to be read. Have you succeeded in doing so?
As it happens, I do give away quite a lot of what I write. The full text
of four of my books--the self-published one and three of the others--is
on my web page, along with a lot of my published articles. The web page
is averaging a bit over three thousand visitors a day. I also have a
blog that gets a fair number of readers.
None of which is a reason to object to the fact that commercial
publishers, facing a different set of costs, organize their business in
a way that keeps down their costs.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If you are so wealthy that you see no significant difference between
$10 and $50, I congratulate you. If you are so poor that you see no
difference, I offer my sympathies. To most people, there'd be a hell of
a difference.
David Friedman
<ddfr-158169.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> I've gotten published--six books so far, four or five of which are in
> print. And I've self-published a book, and sold (I'm guessing, since I
> don't keep careful track) about two thousand copies of it over the year.
should have been "over the years."
Kay Shapero
write more than one book and farm them around?
--
Kay Shapero
address munged, email kay at following domain
http://www.kayshapero.net
David Friedman
Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> I believe the standard solution for no simultaneous submissions, is to
> write more than one book and farm them around?
What a clever idea.
Dorothy J Heydt
>write more than one book and farm them around?
That's right. One book per publisher/agent at a time.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Eric Ammadon
>In article <1kpil5ppnuao0qpur...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>
>> >How about the argument that was just given and that you ignored in your
>> >reply--that reading slush is a cost, and without the rule against
>> >simultaneous submissions publishers would have to read several times as
>> >much slush.
>>
>> Tough luck, every business has costs. A profit is added to the cost
>> and the customer pays the resulting price or goes elsewhere.
>
>Or, alternatively, the business operates in ways that keep down the
>cost, in order to be able to sell at a price which enough customers are
>willing to pay. This particular business keeps down the cost by not
>allowing simultaneous submissions, thus avoiding a lot of wasted
>effort--five editors reading the same manuscript.
If a business is fortunate enough to have built a group of inventory
suppliers who are willing to make no profit or operate at a loss, how
nice for it and too bad for them, indeed.
However, the premise that "no simultaneous submissions" reduces the
workload for any given publisher is invalid, as it only affects the
industry as a whole and the industry of manuscript suppliers. And
yes, the more of those inventory suppliers who go out of business and
flip burgers instead of producing manuscripts, the less work there is
for the publishing industry as a whole. Fortunately for them the
supply of twaddle-creators is nearly infinite and increasing all the
time, so there appears to be no shortage of suppliers who will submit
to the abuse and flip burgers while they wait for permission to
petition the next publisher. Publishers appear to think that anyone
who goes elsewhere is equivalent to anyone else who goes elsewhere,
which is their choice.
>...
>
>> >What would your response be if someone proposed a different way of
>> >building your house, say, or doing some other large project--that would
>> >take three times as much of your work--and when you objected he came
>> >back with "Oh, you poor inept baby, we should feel sorry for you?"
>>
>> The did exactly that but I did not waste my time objecting because I
>> am not a poor inept baby. I read the building codes that applied and
>> built my house myself, from the ground up, plumbing, electrical,
>> framing, siding, roofing, everything except pouring the foundation and
>> hanging the drywall, resulting in a better quality home for a small
>> fraction of the cost.
>
>Yet you object to the publishers doing the equivalent--running their
>business in the way that holds down the cost, instead of running it in
>the way that would be more convenient for you as a potential provider of
>one input.
I object to listening to people whine about the abuse they chose to
subject themselves to. I object to collusive market practices. I
object to the eating of live babies for breakfast. There are lots of
things that I object to.
The "no simultaneous submissions" rule exists, it is a fact of life.
By the hour, authorship is unlikely to be what one would call a
lucrative business. A writer can choose to send a manuscript first to
a publisher who does not have the rule. A writer can choose to ignore
the rule if that suits his or her personal ethics. A writer can
choose to follow the rule. Writers may petition agents for their
intercession if they believe that is to their advantage. Writers may
simply walk away from the whole carnival. There are many rational and
respectable alternatives to choose from.
Personally I don't know that I wish to play the publishing game as it
is currently rigged. I do know that if I was to send a manuscript to
a publisher who had the "no simultaneous submissions" rule the cover
letter would say something like "blah blah... your sole consideration
FOR THE NEXT 30 DAYS". I expect that makes it less wasteful for me
not to bother, which is fine since I have other toys to play with.
>> >> Most manuscripts are not truly good. They can't possibly be, because
>> >> most of the books on sellers' shelves are not truly good, they are not
>> >> even much past mediocre on the whole.
>> >
>> >The problem with such a statement is that it assumes an objective
>> >standard of "good." There are lots of books that, in my judgement, are
>> >worse than mine, but that I think a publisher would reasonably expect to
>> >sell better than mine--because most readers don't share my tastes.
>>
>> I have not read your book. I could read it as if I was a publisher,
>> or read it as a friend wishing to help you. It is my intent to take
>> the second approach once more pressing tasks are dealt with. If that
>> is an error on my part feel free to let me know, I can have something
>> for you today if that's all you're after.
>
>I don't see the relevance of that. If you read _Harald_, I hope you will
>do it neither as a publisher nor as a friend but as someone reading for
>enjoyment--and will stop if you decide you aren't going to enjoy it.
From what I have heard about _Harald_ I have no interest whatsoever in
reading that one. Exciting adventures in the cold during the middle
ages do not appeal to me.
> If
>you read _Salamander_ as a beta reader, then useful suggestions are
>indeed in order.
Patience then, the world of events seems to have a "no simultaneous
activities" rule just as the world of physics seems to have a "no
simultaneous locations" rule.
>But my point wasn't about how you do or don't read either book. It was
>about why your comment about the books on the shelves was either wrong
>or irrelevant. Publishers aren't in existence to please you (or me), so
>the fact that they publish books that you find mediocre doesn't mean
>that they aren't doing a good job of filtering--finding books that a
>significant number of people will like.
There job is not to please any individual, or even the public as a
whole. Their job is to make a profit for the owners of the business.
They can make their profit in various ways. Squeezing suppliers of
inventory is one of the ways they can keep costs down. It's their
business, they get to choose how they run it. I get to choose not to
play the "no simultaneous submissions" game. Easy-peasey.
>...
>
>> >Publishers would have us believe that having to read several times as
>> >much slush would make their job harder. That's a perfectly reasonable
>> >thing to believe.
>
>> Sure, I cry crocodile tears every time I hear how tough they have it,
>> but that doesn't mean I'll take up the slack for them.
>
>You have no obligation to submit your manuscript to a publisher. They
>offer to do business with you on specified terms, you accept or not as
>you like.
"We are Siamese, if you don't please."
>> >> What they are, in my opinion, is afraid to reject
>> >> the obviously unqualified immediately. If they are running a
>> >> hand-holding service instead of a publishing business they are going
>> >> about it lamentably.
>> >
>> >And you offer that opinion on the basis of profound ignorance--you
>> >haven't, I gathered, been a publisher, worked for a publisher, or had
>> >any other experience on which you could ground it.
>>
>> An economics professor who is too emotionally involved with a need to
>> "get published" to perform a rudimentary market analysis throwing the
>> term "profound ignorance" around is laughable.
>
>I've gotten published--six books so far, four or five of which are in
>print. And I've self-published a book, and sold (I'm guessing, since I
>don't keep careful track) about two thousand copies of it over the year.
For whatever reasons you seem disinclined to consider the industry of
book creation, distribution, consumption etc as a set of markets.
Perhaps it is less effortful to cast aspersions of "profound
ignorance" at those who have, and who do not like what they see.
>...
>
>> Or not, I'm not sure why I should care really. If I want people to
>> read what I write I can give it away.
>
>That isn't sufficient--you also have to write stuff people want to read,
>and somehow inform enough of the people who want to read such stuff that
>it's there to be read.
Actually I don't "have" to do anything at all.
> Have you succeeded in doing so?
Are you reading my words?
>As it happens, I do give away quite a lot of what I write. The full text
>of four of my books--the self-published one and three of the others--is
>on my web page, along with a lot of my published articles. The web page
>is averaging a bit over three thousand visitors a day. I also have a
>blog that gets a fair number of readers.
>
>None of which is a reason to object to the fact that commercial
>publishers, facing a different set of costs, organize their business in
>a way that keeps down their costs.
It's their business, they can run it however they choose. After all,
"There's a sucker born every minute."
Eric Ammadon
When I started buying novels they cost a buck or two so anything more
than that is outrageous. The difference between a little outrageous
and extremely outrageous is trivial unless you intend to act on it,
and acting on everything you find outrageous causes one to become very
tired very quickly.
It has been my observation that if one buys only what one cannot find
a way to avoid buying, one usually ends up with a few pennies at the
end of the day after the truly necessary has been purchased. I have
also observed that if one buys everything the marketing machine touts
and fad declares to be essential, one ends up beneath a mountain of
debt.
Choice is what you might call an individual decision. I would be no
more likely to pay $10 for a book than I would be to pay $50 or $100
for a book since price is not the determining factor.
Eric Ammadon
>I believe the standard solution for no simultaneous submissions, is to
>write more than one book and farm them around?
Practical, and probably universally ethical.
Someone please post a new topic for discussion.
[Don't the people posting all the spam realize that if someone wants a
fake rolex he'll go to some search engine and look for sources, and
that their time would be better spent ensuring that their website
offering cheap junk appears in the search results?]
JF
> That's right. One book per publisher/agent at a time.
And here's me, a gentle, bookish bumbler. How can I keep track of
more than one at a time?
JF
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> When I started buying novels they cost a buck or two so anything more
> than that is outrageous.
The value of those bucks having changed by how much over that long a
period of time?
...
> It has been my observation that if one buys only what one cannot find
> a way to avoid buying, one usually ends up with a few pennies at the
> end of the day after the truly necessary has been purchased. I have
> also observed that if one buys everything the marketing machine touts
> and fad declares to be essential, one ends up beneath a mountain of
> debt.
There are, however, intermediate possibilities.
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> For whatever reasons you seem disinclined to consider the industry of
> book creation, distribution, consumption etc as a set of markets.
On the contrary. That is how I consider it.
> Perhaps it is less effortful to cast aspersions of "profound
> ignorance" at those who have, and who do not like what they see.
>
>
> >...
> >
> >> Or not, I'm not sure why I should care really. If I want people to
> >> read what I write I can give it away.
> >
> >That isn't sufficient--you also have to write stuff people want to read,
> >and somehow inform enough of the people who want to read such stuff that
> >it's there to be read.
>
> Actually I don't "have" to do anything at all.
I was responding to your "If I want ... ." If you want people to read
what you write, giving it away isn't sufficient--you also have to ... ."
...
Eric Ammadon
>In article <h2all5p1vem2ahehv...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>
>> When I started buying novels they cost a buck or two so anything more
>> than that is outrageous.
>
>The value of those bucks having changed by how much over that long a
>period of time?
I've heard of inflation. I've also heard of chain-letters.
>...
>
>> It has been my observation that if one buys only what one cannot find
>> a way to avoid buying, one usually ends up with a few pennies at the
>> end of the day after the truly necessary has been purchased. I have
>> also observed that if one buys everything the marketing machine touts
>> and fad declares to be essential, one ends up beneath a mountain of
>> debt.
>
>There are, however, intermediate possibilities.
Knock yourself out, pal. It's your nickel.
Ric Locke
>
> [Don't the people posting all the spam realize that if someone wants a
> fake rolex he'll go to some search engine and look for sources, and
> that their time would be better spent ensuring that their website
> offering cheap junk appears in the search results?]
The function of the spam is to insert mentions of their Web site
elsewhere. To a first approximaton, search engines rank the results by
how many other mentions there are. They don't expect /us/ to buy
anything.
Regards,
Ric
Eric Ammadon
Yeah, that's what sucks about google's having bought deja and
manufactured a web interace to usenet, now the cheap-junk clowns can
get their first search-hits through google groups. Before google
decided in their infinite wisdumb to provide the web interface,
spamming usenet would get you zip in terms of search-engine hits.
There was a time when I actually *liked* google, when they first
started, when their search engine was purely a search engine and not
an advertising medium.
Ah, progress, the world truly needs another 10-cent hemorrhoid.
Michael R N Dolbear
> Yeah, that's what sucks about google's having bought deja and
> manufactured a web interace to usenet, now the cheap-junk clowns can
> get their first search-hits through google groups. Before google
> decided in their infinite wisdumb to provide the web interface,
> spamming usenet would get you zip in terms of search-engine hits.
Wrong, since even back then there were sites that copied Usenet posts
and so exposed them to the internet search engines.
And one could post via Deja's web interface and I did.
--
Mike D
Eric Ammadon
Huh, I never realized what an innocent I was back then ("back then"
being defined as any time prior to reading your post, and probably
later). It still sucks (even though it has sucked for longer than I
realized), and I still think google's usenet search is inferior to
what deja provided, but then I fell into the "lover spurned" category
when google started becoming an advertising machine instead of just a
search engine.
Brenda Clough
Excel spreadsheet.
It would seem obvious to take care that none of the novels in
circulation are sequels. But a truly cunning writer would take care to
have the novels interconnected although not necessarily dependent upon
each other; an example might be Bujold's BARRAYAR versus WARRIOR'S
APPRENTICE. Then whichever one sells first, you'd be ready to pony up
the other.
renda
JF
>> And here's me, a gentle, bookish bumbler. How can I keep track of more
>> than one at a time?
> Excel spreadsheet.
In the good old days when I used Acorns, I ran a spreadsheet and
filled in all the shorts and where they went but it was really
just a cat vacuuming exercise.
Last year I must have had ten or fifteen rejections, mostly
agents. They tend to be quicker so don't need much effort.
The latest one is irritating: one of her authors once bought four
of my shorts, so I thought that maybe I'd at least get a better
than usual consideration. No, another Brad Pitt.
Bugger.
JF
R.L.
> I believe the standard solution for no simultaneous submissions, is to
> write more than one book and farm them around?
Speaking of lack of gate-keepers and all that, I just saw a reference to a
Twilight fan-fic that got 17,000 comments.
It's awful. But it got 17,000 comments.
R.L.
her...@btinternet.com.invalid
<ddfr-E277EA.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> In article <hj7r4q$j34$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
> > > Eric Flint is definitely not a scientologist.
> >
> > Self-confessed Trotsyite, right? That should reassure people.
>
> Patriotic American Trotskyite, I think--an odd and interesting
> combination.
Interesting guy to work with. Not afraid to look around outside the box.
her...@btinternet.com.invalid
submitted in the form of masters theses?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Is slush submitted to science fiction publishers as bad as slush
> submitted in the form of masters theses?
Worse. The masters' theses aren't written with the expectation that
anyone would actually READ them; in many cases, the submitter would
rather you not bother and just stamp them "passed".
Kay Shapero
del...@sonic.net says...
Kay Shapero
sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com says...
> her...@btinternet.com.invalid wrote:
> > Is slush submitted to science fiction publishers as bad as slush
> > submitted in the form of masters theses?
>
> Worse. The masters' theses aren't written with the expectation that
> anyone would actually READ them; in many cases, the submitter would
> rather you not bother and just stamp them "passed".
>
R.L.
> In article <1ecp3vbola05x$.83j8qfs4...@40tude.net>,
> del...@sonic.net says...
>> Speaking of lack of gate-keepers and all that, I just saw a reference to a
>> Twilight fan-fic that got 17,000 comments.
>>
>> It's awful. But it got 17,000 comments.
>>
> How many of them consisted of Arrrrrggghhhhh???? :)
None on the first screen. :-)
Try POTC.
R.L.
John Park
> her...@btinternet.com.invalid wrote:
>> Is slush submitted to science fiction publishers as bad as slush
>> submitted in the form of masters theses?
>
> Worse. The masters' theses aren't written with the expectation that
> anyone would actually READ them; in many cases, the submitter would
> rather you not bother and just stamp them "passed".
>
thesis (probably creative writing). She found that (A) the thesis was
illiterate and (B) she wasn't *allowed* to fail it.
--John Park
Bill Swears
I'd call that a very bad Creative Writing department. I don't think my
university has a particularly good one.
Bill
--
Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise
your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
Brian M. Scott
<af...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in
<news:hjojju$bat$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "Sea Wasp " (sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com) writes:
>> her...@btinternet.com.invalid wrote:
Another mathematician once told me of his experience as an
external examiner for a PhD thesis in sports medicine,
exercise physiology, or something of the sort. As I recall,
the candidate had analyzed film of discus throwers in an
attempt to discover the optimal mechanics for the sport, and
one of his chief findings was that in all of the best
throws, three particular points on the thrower's arm --
probably wrist, elbow, and shoulder -- lay on the
circumference of a circle at some particular point in the
the throw. The internal examiners apparently weren't in the
least perturbed when the mathematician pointed out that
*any* three non-collinear points lie on the circumference of
a circle.
Brian
John W Kennedy
I know an English department that gave a PhD for a mathematically
incompetent statistical analysis of subjectively arrived-at "data" from
a source not shown to be relevant in the first place, all in support of
the insane (I use the word in full consciousness of its meaning)
hypothesis that Brave Sir Neddie De Vere wrote the plays of Shakespeare.
--
John W Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Kushiel
> Name any other industry where they are stupid enough to expect you to
> do the work before you're paid, turn it in as a job application, then
> wait some undetermined time until they make their choice before
> sending out other job applications.
I know people who work semi- or entirely professionally in the visual
arts and music industries, and they're both exactly like this.
John Eno
Brenda Clough
And there's your crucial difference. It isn't an industry, it's an ART.
Brenda
Kushiel
> And there's your crucial difference. It isn't an industry, it's an ART.
I agree, if you mean the difference between art products and non-art
products. If you meant to illustrate the difference between how the
publishing and visual arts and music industries work, I'm not
following what you mean.
John Eno
Brenda Clough
Imagine an actor, who declares that before he bothers to learn how to
act or sing, that he should be guaranteed a role and a definite income.
Imagine a musician who, before mastering guitar or viola or whatever,
wants to be certain of the salary he is going to get.
Brenda
Kushiel
> Imagine an actor, who declares that before he bothers to learn how to
> act or sing, that he should be guaranteed a role and a definite income.
>
> Imagine a musician who, before mastering guitar or viola or whatever,
> wants to be certain of the salary he is going to get.
Cool. We're on the same page here - I wasn't sure if you were
responding to my post or Eric Ammadons'. Thanks for clearing that up.
John Eno
Eric Ammadon
So far, so good. Now imagine a musician being told that he has to
wait to hear about one gig before he may look at any others. Oops,
sorry, I don't think it works that way, you'll end up with some
third-rater playing in your club instead of the guy you tried to jerk
around.
Kushiel
> So far, so good. Now imagine a musician being told that he has to
> wait to hear about one gig before he may look at any others.
You're drawing the wrong parallel here. The correct parallel to a
musician's live gig is a writer's speaking engagement.
The correct parallel to a writer sending out a manuscript is a
musician sending out a demo, which is a lot more work than it sounds
like. Almost always, for a record label to consider signing you, not
only do you need to have completed the project of recording the demo,
you need to have an established fanbase. So while you're correct that
in the music industry, there isn't any rule (that I know of) against
sending simultaneous submissions to multiple labels, the amount of up-
front work that needs to be done is in the ballpark of, say, writing
multiple novels so that you can send out a number of them without
running afoul of No Simultaneous Submissions.
John Eno
Eric Ammadon
>On Jan 29, 3:40�am, Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>> So far, so good. �Now imagine a musician being told that he has to
>> wait to hear about one gig before he may look at any others. �
>
>You're drawing the wrong parallel here. The correct parallel to a
>musician's live gig is a writer's speaking engagement.
At first the idea of "a writer's speaking engagement" struck me as
ludicrous (hey, writers *write*, what do we know about spikking?) but
I suppose getting paid to vacuum the cat isn't entirely stupid.
>The correct parallel to a writer sending out a manuscript is a
>musician sending out a demo, which is a lot more work than it sounds
>like. Almost always, for a record label to consider signing you, not
>only do you need to have completed the project of recording the demo,
>you need to have an established fanbase. So while you're correct that
>in the music industry, there isn't any rule (that I know of) against
>sending simultaneous submissions to multiple labels,
See there, I toldja so. <g>
> the amount of up-
>front work that needs to be done is in the ballpark of, say, writing
>multiple novels so that you can send out a number of them without
>running afoul of No Simultaneous Submissions.
>
>John Eno
I have less of a problem with the "no simultaneous submissions" rule
than people might think. I mean, it's not something I'm likely to put
up with, but other folks are free to put up with whatever floats their
boats.
And I certainly have no problem with doing a boatload of work up front
and then trying to sell it, I come from a software background and
anybody who wants to sell a software product has to build it first.
It's the gall of an industry that considers itself so important that
it can jerk people around that way that I object to. Not to worry,
print publishing has lots of third-raters sitting in the slushpile,
they won't miss my output.
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 29, 3:40�am, Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> >> So far, so good. �Now imagine a musician being told that he has to
> >> wait to hear about one gig before he may look at any others. �
> >
> >You're drawing the wrong parallel here. The correct parallel to a
> >musician's live gig is a writer's speaking engagement.
>
> At first the idea of "a writer's speaking engagement" struck me as
> ludicrous (hey, writers *write*, what do we know about spikking?) but
> I suppose getting paid to vacuum the cat isn't entirely stupid.
Bill Buckley, in the introduction to a collection of his speeches,
comments that the secret authors don't tell you is that giving talks
pays much better than writing books. You might also consider examples
such as Mark Twain.
...
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Kushiel
> It's the gall of an industry that considers itself so important that
> it can jerk people around that way that I object to.
My only purpose in posting was to let you know that the publishing
industry's gatekeeping methods aren't the anomaly that you seem to
believe they are, and to answer your plea: "Name any other
industry..." (While I was at it, I figured I'd double down and name
two of them.)
John Eno
Eric Ammadon
>In article <el96m51ecp4ve9b8f...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>
>> Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 29, 3:40�am, Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>> >> So far, so good. �Now imagine a musician being told that he has to
>> >> wait to hear about one gig before he may look at any others. �
>> >
>> >You're drawing the wrong parallel here. The correct parallel to a
>> >musician's live gig is a writer's speaking engagement.
>>
>> At first the idea of "a writer's speaking engagement" struck me as
>> ludicrous (hey, writers *write*, what do we know about spikking?) but
>> I suppose getting paid to vacuum the cat isn't entirely stupid.
>
>Bill Buckley, in the introduction to a collection of his speeches,
>comments that the secret authors don't tell you is that giving talks
>pays much better than writing books. You might also consider examples
>such as Mark Twain.
>
>...
Knock yourself out, they don't print enough money to get me to jump
through that hoop, or the book-signing hoop, or the author-photo hoop.
Mark Twain? Mutants don't make good examples. <g>
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
I don't think he was exceptional in that regard--speaking tours seem to
have been a pretty common source of income for writers at the time.
Eric Ammadon
His mutation was not evident in the fact that he spoke, but in what he
said as he was saying it. Will Rogers was another attempt at the same
subspecies.
I hope you didn't take my use of the word "mutants" as being negative
in some way.
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
Not at all. But I took it as suggesting that Mark Twain was able to make
money giving speeches because of something special about him not shared
with other popular writers--which does not seem to have been the case.
Eric Ammadon
I expect that he was, and the ability of others to find speaking
engagements does not imply otherwise. Almost anybody can find
speaking engagements in a hungry market, I'd expect Twain would have
been able to find them in any market if he so wished.
The logic you implied seems to be fallacious btw, that an expert can
succeed in an area where success is easy does not detract from his
expertise. I'm not a big fan of "name that fallacy" but I expect it
has one.
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
Not at all. But I took it as suggesting that Mark Twain was able to make
money giving speeches because of something special about him not shared
with other popular writers--which does not seem to have been the case.
--
Eric Ammadon
The fact that an unusually talented person can succeed in the same
endeavor as the less talented does not make him less.