Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Paper versus

  • Jul. 8th, 2009 at 7:04 AM
zombie
There's been discussion on the webbers (at Scalzi's blog and on Making Light, principally) regarding the "Big 3" (that's Analog, Asimov's, and Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction) and whether or not they're hurting themselves by not accepting e-mail submissions. My take (because you asked, no you didn't, but let's pretend you did) is that, yes, they are, because, since some writers decline to submit to magazines that demand paper subs, there are stories the Big 3 aren't seeing, and some of those stories are bound to be good. Of course, most of those stories won't be very good, but that's true of any stack of stories.

I've had stories published at Asimov's and F&SF, and I consider those publications important to me both personally and professionally. And I'm an old-fashioned kind of nut who sees some romance or at least quaint charm in preparing a paper manuscript and sealing it in a manila envelope and putting it in an actual metal mailbox. I really enjoyed mailing off stories when I lived across the street from a little franchise postal station in the back of the Bug & Weed Mart, because there's just something fun about sending off a story in the same place where poison and skunk traps are sold.

That being said. I don't write a whole bunch of short stories any more. A couple or a few a year. I seldom send those stories to the Big 3. I can usually find other homes for them that pay the same rate or better and will take my subs over email. Some writers (well, Mike Resnick) might think I'm being silly and foolish and committing acts of career duncedumbery, but I like the places where my stories have been appearing. And quaint charm aside, if I can avoid using up printer ink and buying stamps and making a trip down to the post office, I'll do it, because I am human, which is to say, I don't burn money and calories if it's avoidable.

This is not me standing on principle. This is not an act of hatred or indifference directed toward any magazine. The editors of Asimov's and F&SF have never treated me with anything but kindness and respect, and I want them to prosper. I'm not saying I won't keep submitting to the "Big 3." But they aren't the only good places for short stories. There are other places to find an audience (to the extent that there is an audience for short stories, which is debatable), other places to make six to nine cents a word (Tor.com pays $.25/word, btw), and other routes than those traveled by writers in decades past. Which is not to say I'm abandoning the old routes, but there are other options, and convenience of doing business is something I factor in when deciding where to send my stories.

Please note that I'm not really asking anyone to care. Tables of contents will be filled with or without me. I'd rather they be filled with me. Stuffed, even. Accepting electronic submissions might make that more likely.

***

The Adventures in SciFi Publishing podcast is back after a brief hiatus, and host Shaun Farrell had me for a return visit. We talk about short stories and novels and Norse mythology and suchlike things.

***

Tim Pratt's posted the second chapter of Bone Shop, his reader-supported novella about the early days of Marla Mason, protagonist of his fine, fine fantasy novels. I'm enjoying the hell out of it so far.

***

This tree is, like, melting!

From San Diego - 2009


That's from Zoro Garden in Balboa Park. Zoro Garden used to be a nudist colony. During and after WWII it was used for the recovery of wounded servicemen. Now it's a butterfly garden and tree liquefaction facility.

Comments

( 39 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]sarah_prineas wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:24 pm (UTC)
That is a wicked cool tree picture!!

RE e-subs. You make excellent points.

HarperCollins is a paperless office. Well, as much as they can be. Editor and I did our last round of edits via email.
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:27 pm (UTC)
My novel publishers still send their edits on paper, but they take care of the ink/paper/mailing expenses.
[info]sarah_prineas wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:31 pm (UTC)
Oh yeah, so does Harper. They always send a UPS envelope, and they even offer to call UPS for me to make the pickup. Is sweet deal.

We're still doing galleys on paper, obviously. Supposedly that's going to change, too. My editor is old school, as you know, and it's a difficult transition.

You know, even C took my last novel via email. That's a big change!!
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:39 pm (UTC)
There are a lot of advantages to handling various production stages via hard copy, and I do understand why some places prefer paper submissions, but it does transfer expense and inconvenience to the writer. Which may or may not be fair, but I think editors shouldn't be at all surprised or miffed if writers avoid it when they can.
[info]hagdirt wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 05:24 pm (UTC)
There are a lot of advantages to handling various production stages via hard copy

And how. We have tried going to paperless, but it hasn't been even mildly successful yet. Part of it is institutional friction, part was technical glitches, the rest is that 3M is counting on us to keep their business afloat via Post-It Notes.

At least, after 10 years here, they've finally given us a recycling bin... that doesn't sneakily get emptied into the trash at the end of the day. (We think.)

Some days I have to assume I am really in the business of murdering trees.
[info]nihilistic_kid wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:45 pm (UTC)
Harper even eliminated their paper catalogs for their varioys imprints, to the shock, surprise, and jealousy of many at BEA. Their gimmies were mouspads with the URL for their new electronic catalog.
[info]sarah_prineas wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:57 pm (UTC)
Harper does excellent e-books, too.

They've also switched over a lot of their marketing efforts to what they call "digital space." No idea yet if any of what they are trying actually works.
[info]charmingbillie wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:11 pm (UTC)
Harper *does* do excellent e-books. Someone of the best ones I've seen.

On the other hand I am still dubious about 'digital space'.
[info]imago1 wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:26 pm (UTC)
Isn't Tor.com invitation only?
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:28 pm (UTC)
Er, I don't know.
[info]imago1 wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:43 pm (UTC)
That's my impression/understanding.

With the exception of Subterranean, I can make more money working with F&SF because I can and do sell them novelettes and novellas. The email only publications are terrific -- if you only write short stories.
[info]krylyr wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:47 pm (UTC)
And isn't Subterranean invite only, too?
[info]imago1 wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:59 pm (UTC)
I think you're correct. I don't know why I thought they were open to submissions.
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:48 pm (UTC)
Then it makes sense for you to put F&SF at the top of your market list, and it's obvious to anyone following genre short fiction that it's working for you. Your name in a table of contents is a bigger draw than mine, so F&SF could claim it's working for them too. But it sure ain't working perfectly for them, and taking e-mail subs would probably work even better.
[info]imago1 wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:58 pm (UTC)
I don't know about all that.

Considering F&SF just published King, I don't think Van Gelder's hurting for talent to fill out his content.
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:01 pm (UTC)
I don't think I argued that the digests are hurting for talent. I argued that there are good stories they aren't seeing. And they may not be hurting for talent, but they certainly are hurting.
[info]imago1 wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:08 pm (UTC)
Well of course. Just as markets that don't look at anything longer than SS length are cutting themselves off from a significant talent pool. No Flowers for Algernon online.
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:16 pm (UTC)
I'm really not a print-is-dead person. I like print, I like online, and I hope there'll always be room for both. But publishing in print shouldn't mean submissions have to be on paper. Am I missing your point, or do we agree on this, at least?

[info]imago1 wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:20 pm (UTC)
No, we agree. I hate submitting on paper -- my agent is handling a couple of big documents for me entirely via email and it's a dream.

I just don't have a hangup about dead tree sub methods because I used to compose on a typewriter with whiteout as my only friend. I also used to walk to school in the snow, uphill, both ways.
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:23 pm (UTC)
Heck, I'm so old my first email account was AOL.
[info]imago1 wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:27 pm (UTC)
I should also note the Imago Sequence collection is 120k words. Night Shade sent me a big old box of pages to examine, but otherwise the entire transaction was electronic. Yay!

Edited at 2009-07-08 04:27 pm (UTC)
[info]nihilistic_kid wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:48 pm (UTC)
You can query.
[info]imago1 wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:02 pm (UTC)
I'll have my agent query them with my x-rated space opera novel excerpt asap!
[info]krylyr wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:55 pm (UTC)
On a different note, I'm very happy Shaun Farrell's podcast is back up, and that it's featuring you.

Also very much looking forward to reading Bone Shop. It doesn't matter that I still need to read the last two MM books, does it?
[info]sarah_prineas wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 03:58 pm (UTC)
Nope! Bone Shop is a prequel.
[info]charmingbillie wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:10 pm (UTC)
One of the last short stories I sold was never printed out (at least by me). Which I liked at lot, particularly as I only have a semi-working printer at home.

On the other hand, Asimov's has been a really good market for me so it's still worth printing and sending to them.

On the other other hand, I agree with whoever above said that some of the online markets (Tor and Subterranean for two) aren't open so whether then take e-subs is moot to me (and, really, have we not established that it's all about me all the time--I think we should).

So, I guess I am coming down squarely in the middle, but really leaning toward all e-subs all the time.
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:30 pm (UTC)
Then it still makes sense for you to keep Asimov's at the top of your submissions list. It may very well make sense for me to keep them there, too. In any case, invite-only doesn't mean you have to wait to be invited. You can always query.
[info]jedifreac wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:57 pm (UTC)
I don't have much experience with either, but I can imagine that paper submissions might help them weed out the submissions a little easier? It's a lot harder to find the diamond in the rough in email...
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 04:59 pm (UTC)
Crazy people have crayons and butcher paper, too.
[info]jedifreac wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 05:14 pm (UTC)
But it costs more effort and more money to walk to the post office and send it by mail. >_< E-subs are free.
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 05:22 pm (UTC)
Reading the various discussions on this topic reveals anecdotal evidence from editors that the quality of slush pile doesn't vary based on format.
[info]jedifreac wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 05:25 pm (UTC)
=(
[info]freudinshade wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 05:47 pm (UTC)
How did you know that's how I always submit my manuscripts? Typescripts are so antiseptic.
[info]prusik wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 05:24 pm (UTC)
Reading the comments to your blog post finally cleared something up for me. I honestly couldn't figure out why passions at John Scalzi's blog and Making Light were getting so heated. Part of it is that while people are saying, "Magazines ought to take electronic submissions. They might be better off in the long run", what other people are hearing is "Paper submission is teh EVILZ. They CAN HAZ DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!!111!!!1!" They then respond with "But paper submission isn't evil. It's a process like any other." This then propagates into lots of heat as people continue to talk past each other.

One mystery solved, at least.

Good to hear you on Adventures in SF Publishing. You gave a wonderful interview and I'm also glad the podcast is back.
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 9th, 2009 03:42 am (UTC)
Well, now we know one more way to liven up a dull con party.

Glad you liked the interview. Shaun was really nice to let me back on.
[info]mythusmage wrote:
Jul. 8th, 2009 07:42 pm (UTC)
Zoro Gardens Corrections
The tree isn't actually in Zoro Gardens, but just outside it, between the Gardens and the Reuben H. Fleet Science Center. It's been there for a few years and is a fine example of whatever species it is.

The nudist colony at Zoro Gardens was for the Panamanian Exposition back in 1914; held to celebrate the opening of the Panama Canal (and promote San Diego as a tourist destination and place to live.) Once the exposition shut down, so did the nudist colony.

BTW, the San Diego Zoo got started around this time.
[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 9th, 2009 03:43 am (UTC)
Re: Zoro Gardens Corrections
San Diego, a great place to work, live, and shop, and be naked.
[info]aaronjv wrote:
Jul. 9th, 2009 08:50 am (UTC)
Dear sir
I don't know much about writing, especially not fiction, but here's a cool picture of a tree dripping over a Cambodian temple:

[info]gregvaneekhout wrote:
Jul. 9th, 2009 03:52 pm (UTC)
Re: Dear sir
They should build a tiny little temple under the tree in Zoro Gardens.
( 39 comments — Leave a comment )