Plus lucky. And persistent.

For me it's not a matter of if, but when it becomes easier to self-publish, I think more and more wannabes (not to mention the established) writers will jump on board. Like I said elsewhere, someone will buy something from someone somewhere sometime. And if we can cut out the middleman and go as directly from the writer to the reader as is possible, well, you do the math.

I believe (since I have no hard statistics to prove which way the demographic lies) the second group vastly outnumbers the first. If publishers present that second group with a reliably better quality product, then I don't see the slushpile model changing for first-time authors any time soon.

The issue is how you get your work to a potential audience. Publishers and bookstores, in effect, worked together to do this. But if ANYONE could get their work in a bookstore (as, in effect, can be done with Amazon) then the purchaser is simply overwhelmed with possible material (all of which has 5-star reviews, courtesy of the author's family and friends...).

I will say that it looks as though online music sales will catch up with cd sales this year. I don't think it'll mean the end of big music companies, but it will mean a rethinking of the business model.

Same with the publishing industry. JK Rowling and Stephanie Meyer won't have any problems getting published, but the midlist writer will be getting more and more squeezed. A lot of that has to do with the current economy, but a lot of it also has to do with trying to figure out the new business model.

I think it would take a big name author to get behind an online site, and make it some kind of "clearing house" for online magazines/written work. Kind of like a myspace for writers. I believe there are plenty of sites for authors to peddle their wares (Red Room), but I don't know how well they help writers make money.

Some college students can now download certain textbooks to their e-readers and its only a matter of time before this is more commonplace.

Something more is needed...and that usually breaks down into editors and publishers.

One of the more satisfying things about my foray into Internet Fan Fiction was the reaction I got from readers. Nearly everything I wrote got some kind of response. Late as early last year, I was still getting fan mail on them, long after I'd abandoned the field. I liked the stuff I wrote...now I knew others liked it, too.

Guys, it really is all about persistence. No magic tricks. No rabbits out of hats.

In the past, several markets did manage more than that---I got a lot of help from the George Scithers era Asimov's (and later Amazing) that way. But the Big Three right now---they don't do it, or if they do they're not doing it for me.

Me? It's been 17 years of nothing, and now, poof, two big successes within two months of eachother. Now I could lie and say that my 17 years were 17 years of grueling, constant, arduous effort, or I could be honest and say that much of that 17 years was spent dawdling, diddling, doodling, and pretty much fooling around when I probably should have buckled down much, much sooner, and probably would have started selling much, much sooner.

Also, I think a lot of it had to do with age. I was 18 when I first conjured the notion of being a professional writer. 95% of my stuff up until now is "homework," because I was neither emotionally nor experientially prepared to render characters with sufficient depth. Much of my early stuff is attrocious in that it's clearly the work of a hyperactive child. I believe I've had to "grow into" my newfound success, as a person, so perhaps even if I'd gone balls-to-wall (as I did for two years in my early 20's) it might not have mattered because I still wasn't up to the task of giving my characters the life and depth necessary to reach sufficient emotive impact.

Has your 35 year struggle been constant and unremitting, or have there been long silences and stretches of relative inactivity?

Do you find yourself wrapped around the axle over "rules" or do you get fixated on the "idea" of the story, versus character?

I know for me I've had to just turn off my targetting computer and 'let go' as it were, in regards to many of the rules that get hurled at us all the time as aspirants. I began to explore the idea that emotional response -- on the part of the reader -- was the key to creating stories that people would want to read. They might intellectual like an idea or a concept, but if the characters did not generate sufficient emotion in the reader, then the story was dead before it ever left the table.

As for timeframe, from about age fourteen to age twenty-five it was my main interest---after which I had to devote time to making a living at something else, but from twenty-five to right now (I'm forty-eight) I've always been working on something or other, if not at the typewriter or word processor than inside my head.

I think my stuff is "as good" as "some" that's been published---and has been since at least 1992.

And I've seen some much-praised stuff, even award-winning stuff, that I thought was just awful---I know I've written better stories. They might lack that so-called SF-idea quotient (a lot of what I do might be considered telling old ideas my way)---but I'm not willing to tolerate a bad story because of its idea.

(says the newly minted ANALOG author)

I talk about the Big Three because, when I got into this racket, print publication was what I wanted---and print publication is still what I'm aiming for. It's not the money---which isn't much---it's about putting a story in the pages of what were once my favorite magazines. Internet publication just doesn't do it for me. (Realms of Fantasy is there, and I'd submit to it, if my stuff were a little more fantasy and a little less SF; I've written some fantasy in the past.)

*****

I've come to think a Hugo or Nebula isn't very significant. I mentioned above, about award-winning stories I hated. I'll fill in the blanks on one such, names and such.

I've read, admired, and been influenced by the work of Vernor Vinge, ever since encountering his work when I first subscribed to Analog back in the early seventies. A few years ago he put out a collection of his work; I picked up a trade paperback edition once I saw it, delighted with a chance to revisit old friends and maybe make new ones. All the stories were good as I remembered, except one, a lengthy one that I found impenetrable and unintelligible. I figured he had failed to sell it and put it there to pad out the collection.

About a week later, I heard that story won the Hugo.

I tried it again---found it as imnpenetrable and unintelligible as ever. After that, it was impossible for me to take the SF awards seriously.

*****

http://www.robertnowall.com/index.html

*****

After all my ranting and raving about the Big Three and submitting to them, I realized last night---it didn't even occur to me until then---that I needed a qualifier on it all. "The above comments apply only to stories that fall below novel length."

quote:

---

Do you find yourself wrapped around the axle over "rules" I know for me I've had to just turn off my targetting computer and 'let go' as it were, in regards to many of the rules that get hurled at us all the time as aspirants.

---

I agree with this and concur wholeheartedly and absolutely. I desperately, throbbingly, pulsatingly wish more people would say things like this on here. I think the view of the “rules” as anything other than general guidelines or tools is very likely to hold a writer back rather than help them.

quote:

---

or do you get fixated on the "idea" of the story, versus character? They might intellectual like an idea or a concept, but if the characters did not generate sufficient emotion in the reader, then the story was dead before it ever left the table.

---

This is a matter of taste. I know “character focused” is somewhat “in vogue” right now, but even now it isn’t universal. I can and do frequently become just as engaged, emotionally and intellectually, in setting, event and idea based stories as character based ones. Sometimes moreso. Of course, I think I also have an easier time “caring about” characters than a lot of people apparently do. The fact that they are people (of whatever type, kind or species) is usually enough for me.

The author Simon Logan I often mention, much of his fiction and much of why I like his fiction has to do with setting and with mood/atmosphere. And even the ones that are more focused on character…the characters are, I believe, of a sort most folks around here wouldn’t “care about” or connect with.

I’m not trying to attack your opinion or anything. Like I said, I realize character is pretty in fashion right now…to the point where I kind of get tired of all the blogs and articles and stuff that go on about how a story MUST be focused entirely on character change and character conflict to be “good”…again if that’s your taste that’s fine, but other tastes and preferences do exist even in the current market.

And what about the idea that maybe these things are not really all that separate?

I say what I say about this in part because I was kept from writing for a long time by my own fears about whether I’d be able to construct decent plots. Then I discover that professional magazines are regularly publishing stuff that barely even has a plot, as I understand the concept. I wouldn’t want to see any other aspiring authors discouraged because they are unsure about their characterization skills and get bombarded by the idea that that is unequivocally the most important part of a story…

A while ago---must be seven or eight years now---I did read an issue of Asimov's from cover to cover. I realized that three of the stories had exactly the same plot twist. (It was "I know a great secret...but I won't tell.") I thought, "Geez, sloppy editing here, what a mistake doing this, couldn't they have spread these out over several issues?" It was a souring experience, and I don't think I've read an issue of Asimov's from cover to cover since.