http://www.sfrevu.com/ISSUES/2002/0208/Event%20-%20Tor/20020416%20Tor-NYC%20050.jpg
From a wonderful little photoshoot of Tor's offices:
Enjoy, and have a happy Friday night!
No, honestly, think about it. How much stuff gets published each year that isn't as good as anything you can write?
Well, there ya go!
Now, write! Write, and make the universe bow down before you!
Um, or something dramatic like that.
Shawn
Actually, this isn't as scary as you might think. 85% of all manuscripts get turned away because they are not professional. Proper manuscript formatting is not used. They are loaded with misspellings and outrageous grammatical errors. Getting out of this 85% is the easy part.
The hard part is moving from the 85th percentile to the 95th percentile -- that is to say, moving from the standard rejection slip to the rejection slip with personal notes. Then you're on the way to the 99th percentile, being published.
But I still don't think getting a story (not a novel) published is nearly as hard as we make it seem. The problem for most writers is that they begin sending stuff out right away -- they don't wait until the have a story worth sending out. You don't have to be a genius to look know if your story is good or bad. It's amazing to me how many people on this board approach publishing with fear and trembling. One member wasn't sure if the story was good or not (how that's possible is beyond me) so he sent it out anyway just in case. Of course it didn't find a home (I'm assuming that becasue he never told us it was published). But it probably didn't deserve to be published because it probably sucked. He was just to afraid to admit it.
One of the best pieces of advise I heard is this: it take around four years to get a college degree, so why do writers think the should be getting published after three months of work?
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited January 17, 2004).]
I'd agree with this if the writing were something of your own that you wrote years ago and were coming back to: you can give it the outsider's perspective. But if you're ever going to send something out, you probably don't want to have a five year cooling off period so you can get the true view of the piece. They might have developed the technology you're writing about in the meantime.
On the surface, it seems like it really should be easy. You know when somebody else's writing has really caught fire, and when it reeks to high heaven; why not your own? Should be simple enough to apply the same empirical standards and Find Out When You Are Writing Badly. Should be easy.
I don't think it is. In fact, I think it's just about the hardest thing there is... which is why workshops are so helpful, for one thing. It's impossible to look at your own face as an outsider: you're programmed to have that emotional response. (Which is why people with Capgras syndrome, which destroys this emotional response, start thinking their loved ones have been attacked by body snatchers. But that's another story.)
Similarly, it's nearly impossible to look at your characters as they appear in your writing. How could you? You know them too well. You know that Marietta is misunderstood, so how can you tell if the reader is just going to take the easy route out and assume she's a jerk after the third time she insults someone for bumping into her on the street?
Another example, this one from something I sent out. I thought it wasn't bad. One of my beta readers thought it was worth sending out, and this is someone who once told a novelist to throw out seven out of ten chapters of a novel (which was done, and the book got published).
I sent it out. It got rejected. And no surprises there- because I was reading it knowing something interesting was going to happen. I had a reason to go beyond the first thirteen lines- but why should the reader? Going back to it, I could see this, but when I was in the midst of editing it was very, very hard.
Beyond blind spots, you still have two powerful motivations distorting your view of your writing: the effort you put into it ("I spent a year sweating blood on this, it has to be decent"), and raw naked fear ("I can't send this out, everything I do is terrible").
That said, I think your point about the amount of time and patience (and sheer bull-headedness) neccesary to become published is well made.
quote:
it take around four years to get a college degree, so why do writers think the should be getting published after three months of work?
Heh. Depending on the degree, the actual pertinent work load could probably be compressed down to three months.
(Hope I did the quote blocks right.)
[This message has been edited by ccwbass (edited January 17, 2004).]
Hey! I DID do the quote blocks right!
[This message has been edited by ccwbass (edited January 17, 2004).]
Formatting counts. But so do those words--requested material. That's what keeps you off those chair sized piles.
As to seeing your own mistakes--no way. Not when you first start out, and many can't even after they have been in the game for awhile.
Unreal garbage gets sent to publishers. Simply put you have been in bed with the character's for far too long to see the flaws. You mind fills in typos, you no longer read the words on the paper, as was said here, you know the story all too well--you know the big story behind the uncle who suddenly appears in chapter 10 to save the day. The reader sees him come out of the plot convenience woodwork.
That's why authors like King and OSC still have a wise reader.
Your best chance, send the short query, then if they are interested you skip the college type furniture stage and go to someone's desk labeled REQUESTED MATERIAL.
Or, get an agent.
Someone explained an agent this way--and agent can take a chance on the idea that maybe they won't sell your work. The more works they take on the better their chances of making the all mighty buck. A publisher on the other hand has agents to do sorting for them in the form of those requested MS's.
And boy do agented subs go through the system faster than those you send out yourself.
Shawn
We have been Guitar Center patrons, btw (that had been your comment, right?). Got my husband a bass for Valentine's day a ways back from MARS (now gone the way of the dodo), but my amp and electric guitar were from GC. In fact, some of my published stuff is music articles for a website, but now I look back I could have done better...
I read that to get an agent, we should first have a contract in hand (from OSC's book)...
Ha - just went to the speculations link from Balthasar - pretty much what I expect - I've read about this! Why or how anyone would mess up a simple submission when there are tons of instructions out there on how to do it, well, maybe they deserve to get rejected. I guess people are looking for a way to stand out - it looks like you need to do it right to stand out, then let your writing speak for itself. I enjoyed reading that - thank you!
[This message has been edited by punahougirl84 (edited January 17, 2004).]
Ah, well.
I just thought those pictures of the manuscript stacks were hilarious. I found them by doing a serach on the editor's name. In addition to those pictures I found a fascinating and long interview with guy. Overall, the sense I got was that, at least with Tor, it hasn't yet become a "It's who you know" house. Chin up, ma'am.
Cameron
quote:
Overall, the sense I got was that, at least with Tor, it hasn't yet become a "It's who you know" house. Chin up, ma'am.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited January 18, 2004).]
It said one thing that disturbed me. It's only been an issue for thre emonths now, and I may have only been rejected twice for this, but I want to publish under my maiden name. One of the points said that if you use a pseudonym then you get rejected out of hand. Does this mean that I can't publish under my maiden name? Or perhaps that I should submit the thing under my married name and take it up with the editor if and when I actually get a hit?
There's four successful writers publishing today who use pen names. I don't know if Orson is part of OSC's name, but I think he goes by Scott in real life.
Personally, that's the one point where I think the tongue-in-cheek article failed. It seems to me to be more of a personal bias by the author than one held by any real (or good) editor. Of course, I'm biased myself. Jerome Vall is my pen name.
When you query, you do so under your real name. If they request the MS that's when the pen name comes in.
NO need to say I am writing this under me pen name of--
Your real name goes in the slug line and in the header on the title page, then the pen name you will be writing under goes under the centered title.
If you are sending sample chapters, follow the same rule. In the upper left you put your real name, under the centered title the name you want to publish under.
What turns editors off is a big long winded (or even short winded) reason for writing under a pen name. I wish to use my maiden name--Hey the editor says, I haven't even accepted this and they are assuming I'm going to--bang in goes the rejection letter.
The simple correct format listed above shows you understand the process and you are not wasting space with unneeded info.
Shawn
This link is form a magazine not a book publisher so the one that jumped at me was this one--
quote:
Is the envelope smaller than an 8 1/2" by 11" piece of paper? Reject it. Remember Budrys' Law: nothing good ever came folded in half, or, horrors, in thirds
When sending a query letter, folded in thirds is very acceptable--along with the SASE folded in thirds as well.
But a full short story should not arrive that way. Nor should sample material.
Shawn
As far as the "Sweeping Back the Slushpile: a First Reader's Primer".. I'm sure there is a lot to be said for that. In many ways it is just like any other interview. The managers/editors/whomever is ALWAYS looking for reasons to not hire people - unless they are seriously short and need someone NOW.
From things that I have read from MZB, Azimov, etc that happens in publishing also. The publisher might be under a serious deadline and someone that fits into that space gets published - even if it isn't that great.
The other thing that I have seen that will get you a rejection slip is if the story is something that the are seeing an amazing number of stories about - and maybe they just accepted one.
Back to "Sweeping Back the Slushpile: a First Reader's Primer" - the comment about having a 9X12 envelope, as opposed to an envelope which the submission can be folded in half I have heard that if your submission is small enough (ie less than 5 pages) that this can get you pushed into the first rejection pile. --- maybe it is as much preference or just a way to slush quickly.
quote:
The problem for most writers is that they begin sending stuff out right away -- they don't wait until the have a story worth sending out.
Thank You. Also the comment about not being a writer three months after you start is good also. I have spent 8 years as a paid programmer, I'll admit that the first three I was learning like crazy. Since I can feel confident in my abilities to do the job, but that came with experince and reading many books on programming.
My writing is something I enjoy, and I like doing it. I am working on a short story that I am hoping will, after another edit or two, be good enough to send in to be rejected. I can see having a positive attitude about your own writing, but I think the slush piles would be much smaller if people would get a honest opinion first.
I find it a bit funny that a couple weeks before the last harry potter book came out, a friend sent me a "supposed" electronic version of the book. I'll spare everyone with the bordom of reading me rant about how horrid it was. The point was that I knew it was BS after the first paragraph. Out of curiosity I managed to force my way through a couple of pages. Complete waste of time. If the slush pile contains many of horrible manuscripts like that one, I can relate to why they don't give people much chance.
Ok, I was ranting a bit...sorry.
quote:
David Farwell (also publishes SF under his own last name, but I can't remember it).... I don't know if Orson is part of OSC's name, but I think he goes by Scott in real life.
It's David Farland, and his real name is Dave Wolverton.
Orson is his grandfather's name, and yes, it's really part of his name.
Thanks for the Farland correction, and thanks for clearing up that bit about OSC. Ever since I heard someone who knew him call him Scott, I've wondered about the Orson part.