posted
I've satisfied my curiosity about how many English language unsolicited short fiction manuscripts circulate annually.
These are rounded and approximated figures from my research;
2500 online and print digests accepting unsolicited short fiction submissions. From publishers who indicate how many manuscripts they receive, several hundred to 1000 plus unsolicited submissions per month, median number 650. 2500 x 650 x 12 = 19,500,000 per annum unsolicited submissions, give or take a few million.
posted
But surely, a single story may get more than one hit. I have stories that went to 6 places last year.
Posts: 2995 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd bet that some 19,000,000 of them include a mistake in the first 13 lines -- grammar, spelling, dreaming, no hook -- that's serious enough for the slush reader to instantly dismiss them; so the odds on getting published aren't quite as bad as they might appear.
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose, from screening readers's comments that I've encountered, that a significant majority of submissions are rejected based on the first sentence, not all for mechanical detriments, but also for other key factors, like a lack of intitiating immersion. An illustrative article on what goes through an editor's mind by editor-in-chief of Rod Serling's Twilight Zone Magazine (closed 1989), Tappan King;
I mentioned "The Sobering Saga of Myrtle the Manuscript" in a presentation I gave today at a writing workshop, and I told them I didn't know if it was available or not.
I'm so glad to see that it is availabe, and I recommend it to all Hatrackers.
posted
Deciphering handling marks is one reason I like to get manuscripts back; however, many houses refuse to return them. I'm of two minds lately, though. Cost versus limited data return. I've gotten more back that didn't indicate any handling than ones that were dented, stained, and marked on. In fact, the ones that received the least interest were the ones that were most damaged.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Extrinsic's post got me thinking about my current practice.
I usually tell the magazine that my manuscript is disposable, and simply enclose a #10 SASE for the return contract or rejection slip. Saves me money, especially since I can get paper very cheap, and especially since any potential revision I might choose to make before submitting it elsewhere would make the returned manuscript obsolete anyway.
But, now, my paranoid mind has me wondering. Does the lack of an ability for the magazine staff to return a manuscript (without incurring an unwanted expense of providing their own manuscript sized mailer) cause them to balk at accepting a manuscript because the author did not provide a way for them to pass along any proposed changes? Also (and I've never experienced this)...are there magazine staffs that make comments directly on the manuscript before returning it?
posted
One answer to that question is in Tappan King's article. An editor-in-chief will initiate communication to discuss changes if they're interested and want or need to make changes, phone or e-mail.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
