Cynicism is an unfortunate and seductive retreat, once the rejections pile up past a certain point. Especially if you're piling up rejections on the one hand, and reading what you consider to be crap from the pros on the other. I just finished the majority of an issue of a certain (intentionally name ommited) market, and I had to admit that I too thought the bulk of what was in it was sub-standard. Plot holes, lack of plot, confusing or contradictory character motivation, stories lacking sufficient endings, and so forth.

It would be nice if the pro-SFWA-rate markets got it right all the time, but as in television and movies, not all stories suit all tastes, and even the major networks and movie companies churn out a significant number of duds, for all kinds of reasons which aren't really worth worrying about.

I don't know that I have a magic bullet for cynicism and/or being marooned at a certain sub-professional level, other than to cite my own experience. There have been several times in the last 17 years when I've wanted to just throw up my hands and conclude it was a fruitless and awful waste of time, but I could never quite do it. What I did do -- with spousal encouragement and a little fire-under-the-butt talk -- was look for ways to get outside my comfort zone.

For instance, switching viewpoint, from 3rd person to 1st person. I'd noticed that lots of short work was being written in 1st person, and while this "voice" was awesomely awkward for me at first -- because I was so used to reading novels which are very often 3rd person -- I made myself to do it, and after a try or three I felt almost liberated because writing 1st person allowed me to bring an immediacy to the story and the character that I'd never been able to effect before.

I also noticed that lots of stuff being published really did hurl a reader directly into the middle of the story. Much of my inventory (aka: "The Practice Papers") spends a great deal of time on set-up and explanation and world-building. So since 2008 I've made a concerted effort to chop the fronts off of my stories, pick and choose the salient data to layer into the later text, and search for the point at which the critical **CHANGE** takes place -- because the **CHANGE** is also always where the story starts.

As with switching viewpoint, it was awkward and I still don't think I am thoroughly comfortable with how abrupt my story beginnings have become, but I do think the proof is in the pudding: I've managed to lure at least a few editorial eyes to their doom (rubs handlebar mustache while observing publishing contracts lashed to the railroad tracks) and I am both nervous and anticipatory, regarding reader reception. There is every reason to suspect my stories, too, will come across as the "crap" so many see in print these days.

Back to my point, about going outside the comfort zone: I think a lot of us also get into the habit of writing "familiar" stories that are always about a given thing: space stations, robots, monsters, urban elves, urban anything, etc. If you're "stuck" and feeling worn down and tired by it all, I propose that you're quickest fix would be to go in a totally new direction and tackle a totally new aspect of your chosen genre. Adore outer-space adventure of the far future? Try writing a couple of near-future, Earth-based stories. Or vice versa. Prefer fantasy alone? Try some SF. Even if it's just to get out of the "room" you've been in too long, go outside and get some fresh "air" and get some different exercise.

And as mentioned in another thread, don't limit yourself to five markets or less. SF and F has dozens of available markets -- if you don't rely simply on The Big Three -- and a story that skips across the pond five or ten times, might score on the next try. You won't know if you trunk the story in discouragement.

My rule for trunking is not whether or not a story has been rejected, but whether or not I've progressed far enough away from it in ability and time to see it with more objective eyes, and I can tell what it's problems are. I can think of one of my stories right now that I wrote in 2008 and liked very much, but it has not sold and when I re-read it, I realize it's basically a first chapter to a novel, not a complete short work, so I may expand it into a novella or I might mine it for the core character, and try an entirely new story from scratch.

Finally, extra sets of critical eyes can always been useful. Not everyone is equally capable of giving good feedback, but it can be useful to identify a body or bodies whose opinions do seem valuable, and have them look at your stuff once in awhile. Better still, when reading **ANY** fiction, pro or aspirant level, if you find yourself not liking something, identify **WHY** you don't like it, and remember this next time you write something on your own. You might be surprised to discover that what drives you nuts in others' stories, you are unconsciously doing in your own.

I can separate it in two ways: "things I'm still willing to do" and "things I'm no longer willing to do."

Some of you have seen some of my arguments here and there on the boards: small things like notions about appropriate typeface...bigger things like web publication...form letter rejection...merits of Internet Fan Fiction over the whole process...whether one should take anybody's word about the worth of the work as gospel, much less the word of an editor.

You regular readers know some of the things about the process and nature of submission that I've dealt with over the years. The abovementioned typeface issue...why I don't submit to Writers of the Future...the low rates of payment...well, there are thousands of things for me to complain about. Some weigh lightly on me, some weigh heavy. Some objections involve issues far removed from the notion of submission.

I freely admit, from the beginning of my writing career up to a certain point, my submitted works and my writing were cruddy. But, over time, my writing stopped being cruddy, and I expected to walk through that door---only I find further barriers in my way, whether it's the petty stuff as above or further info about precisely why my story is no good and isn't being bought by them.

(Internet Fan Fiction was a liberating experience. I actually found out that people read what I wrote---and also found out that a lot of 'em liked what I wrote, too.)

And in this long experience, I've found that I've reached a point where, as is sometimes said, I'm expected to "crawl on my belly and eat dirt" in order to obtain the questionable experience of being published (and maybe being paid). I won't do it anymore.

*****

I am new to the forums and certainly have not been writing as long as you have. I would inquire if you have participated in writing groups. By this I do not obviously mean writing groups on the internet, since you are here.
I may sound like a newbie stating things you probably already know, but at least for me, the writing process is 80% revision of the other 20%, which is getting the first draft down. Thus, flesh and blood writing groups are so very important for my process. You learn what works, what doesn't and revise accordingly. I compare it to software testing, in which your first draft is the "alpha" phase of the software production cycle, after which it is opened up to more people who offer their feedback. Once you have arrived at the point where the feedback is mostly positive and revisions minimal, I think you are ready to send the story to market.

I used to do an in-person group back when I lived in Seattle, around 2002. It was beneficial, for a time. One thing I suggest about groups of any sort, try to get involved with one where at least a few people are further down the road than you are. Groups where everyone is at your level, or lower, might not help that much because the feedback you get might not always be reliable.

Perhaps even more valuable than a writing group, is having what is commonly referred to as an Alpha Reader: a very trusted person, could be a writer or could be just a very good reader, who knows what you write and how you write and can offer specific feedback about your stories; what works and does not work, etc.

I've got a couple of people I show things to from time to time, but to be honest, I am flying solo on most efforts right now. In fact, my WOTF winner didn't go through any critique at all: I sent it in cold, right off my word processor. Some times it's not always necessary to get critiques and revise based on feedback, though this can be instructive.

One thing you might consider: stagger your stories. Don't run them all through the critique process, just every other story. Learn to trust feedback, but also try to learn to trust your own instincts at the same time. Turn off the targetting computer, as it were. Dependency upon critiques -- being unable to write without them -- isn't necessarily the objective of the process. So going solo some of the time is very healthy IMHO.

Osiris, a quick question: when you say 80% of your work is revision, how much time (guesstimate) do you spend on actual creation of the story in the first place? Over-revision can be harmful, and if you're spending too much time on your re-writes you might be doing more harm than good.

Brief answer: it's the Scientology connection.

Somewhat longer answer: though they seem actively interested in encouraging new talent in the SF field, I simply don't trust their backers. I used to submit to them, back in, oh, the mid-nineties...my distrust was there---I think I've always felt this way about them, once I learned they existed---and I decided, "Okay, I'll submit...but if I start, say, getting junk mail from Scientology I'd call it quits and stop." (They had this thing in those days where they didn't return the first page of the MS, the one with one's name and address.) I did get junk mail from Scientology, and I did stop submitting.

Thanks for the response. I definitely agree with trying to find a group with individuals more advanced than ones self. I have been part of groups where most were less advanced or less serious, and I stopped going to those groups. The group I run is new so its hard to say where the other writers are right now. Time will tell.
I'll admit I have some pretty ambitious ideas about wanting to get published, but I'm sure once the rejection letters start piling up that'll be beaten out of me
I have heard about the "alpha reader" and I think some people are fortunate enough to have an editor as one. I'm still looking for that person. I definitely don't treat all feedback like its equal, though.
Thats an interesting suggestion about staggering stories. I may do it at some point, but my philosophy is that I weigh the feedback I get. If its just one person saying something, its an opinion, but if its several saying something, then It should be seriously weighed against my own instincts. Thats how I approach feedback.

Fatigue is my corollary to writing-as-an-obsession. I write in all my spare time, go to sleep thinking through plot structure and looking for holes, and have character outlines scrolling through the back of my eyes when I'm on the bus. All while retaining a day job and managing small children. Eventually it takes a toll, and for want of a better term I burn out.

The thing that amplifies the burnout is being a drama queen - something I think writers are generally prone to anyway - which causes me to take feeling burned out and reinterpret it as I'm a total failure, logic notwithstanding.

For this reason I'm coming to the realisation that I need to recognise these issues and plan for them. By which I mean - (a) write, then take a holiday, and (b) ignore the dark whispering voices.

I think the biggest contributor to negativity amongst new writers is well established career writers who spout advice that is only applicable to them. Things like keep writing, or you shouldn't have to revise. Frankly, new writers are going to suck: they're still learning technique and need to revise in order to learn how to write better. And new writers aren't career writers - I can't take advice from a career writer who has no children and writes for a living, and apply it to my 11 hour work day and two crying preschoolers.

I think that is one of the reasons I'll submit three or four stories that I like and then don't submit for quite a while. My big excuse is I like novel writing better, and I do, but short stories are, in my opinion, the quickest way to hone your craft.

I participate in another site's story challenges and I write all kinds of stuff within my comfort zone and outside of my comfort zone. It's important to experiment and I think that helps to keep things fresh.

I found myself getting down a few weeks ago and had to pick myself up. I did it with the next WotF story. WotF is a great destination for stories that get out of hand and too large to submit to a market. (has to be one you think a lot of, in any case).

He said, "Look at all the many, many, many professional SF and F writers involved in WOTF, from judges to people who have published in the anthology and gone on to have careers -- none of whom are Scientologists -- and explain to me why you as Aspirant Writer should have a problem with the Contest, and all these pros do not?"

I had to admit, Dean made a great point. Why exactly had I been so hesitant for all those years? Especially when I had local Utah people like Dave Wolverton, Eric James Stone, L.E. Modesitt, Jr., and so forth, lauding the Contest and not saying a word about the Scientology aspect?

It is true that WOTF is focused -- as a legacy memorial -- on L. Ron Hubbard, and I suppose for some people the L. Ron Hubbard connection is too close to Scientology, and they won't be able to get past that. Me? I went with Dean's logic: all the judges and all the writers who were participating, couldn't all be wrong. And it would be rather dumb of me to let nebulous, perhaps even unfairly biased feelings stop me from sending work to what was, ostensibly, a very lucrative and nationally-prestigious venue.

So I began sending work to them in Fall of 2007, and continued to send through 2008 and 2009. Now that I am a winner, I'm mighty glad I put any misgivings aside. It's going to be a terrific week down in Los Angeles next month, and I do think being able to claim a WOTF publication in my cover letter has helped get me out of the first-line slush and bumped me up to second-line closer-look slush at the pro markets.

In so-called "real life," in the job that pays me money, I have to put up with a lot of weird and pointless things whose purposes and existence are often never explained. I carry on with this for the sake of getting that money---often not without argument, given the nature of some of these things.

I see no reason to put up with something like that for the sake of a job that pays me nothing.

*****

That so many SF writers and editors are involved with Writers of the Future only alarms me more---I see it as "being co-opted" or "being corrupted" or "being compromised." Think of it as like going to a Bund rally in the 1930s and then being kept out of O. C. S. when World War II rolled around. I don't propose to be compromised in this way.

*****

One thing, maybe the "ultimate deal-breaker" on all this, is the submission process itself. I send in a manuscript---neatly printed in Times New Roman, which is perfectly readable---and a couple of weeks later I get it back, with a form rejection slip that tells me nothing about why my manuscript was rejected.

Now, I know full well that the markets get hundreds or thousands of manuscripts each month. I know they say they can't possibly send a personal response for each MS because of the volume they deal with. (More on that below.)

But I can't overlook the fact that said process tells me nothing. I'm submitting, and being rejected, in a total vacuum. I see no reason to accept that situation with good grace---it's too much like "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

*****

It's not as if no market has made an effort. It can be done. When Asimov's was edited by the late George Scithers, the staff provided short notes about what was wrong with the rejected story. I found this useful---some of their comments resonate in my work to this day. Other markets have tried, with notes or checklists or letters or such.

But, right now, at least among the Big Three of the SF short story market, they don't. I can't remember the last time I got something that said something about what I've written. The last few times, Analog and [/i]Asimov's[/i] sent a note that looks photocopied, and F & SF sends a computer-generated note that at least includes your name and the title of your story. But neither routinely say anything to the struggling writer.

I think it would be great if people don't compromise their values by submitting to venues they feel aren't suitable for one reason or another--it's their right. In fact, I would go so far as to say it would be even better if people developed and refined their personal values so as to exclude even more venues. Also, it would be fantastic, if you do find a venue you feel comfortable with, that you ignore the submission guidelines as much as possible.

quote:

---

It's not as if no market has made an effort. It can be done. When Asimov's was edited by the late George Scithers, the staff provided short notes about what was wrong with the rejected story. I found this useful---some of their comments resonate in my work to this day. Other markets have tried, with notes or checklists or letters or such.

But, right now, at least among the Big Three of the SF short story market, they don't. I can't remember the last time I got something that said something about what I've written. The last few times, Analog and Asimov's sent a note that looks photocopied, and F & SF sends a computer-generated note that at least includes your name and the title of your story. But neither routinely say anything to the struggling writer.

What am I to make of that?

---

That they just don't have the time?

Forget what happened in the past. The past is another country: they do things differently there. You're basically saying "if they are not prepared to help me write the stories they want, then what can I do?", but it is not their job to do that. It is their job to select stories that they believe will entertain their readership and thus maintain sales of the magazine (it's a side argument, albeit a valid one, whther they are doing that job well or not), and if they receive sufficient stories that meet their needs why should they take time - everyone's most precious commodity - to actually then make their job more difficult, by receiving more strong pieces?

And your stout adherence to Times New Roman on the grounds tthat it's "perfectly readable" just makes me want to tear my hair out (though as I don't really have any, that's tricky). Control-A selects the entire document. One drop-down menu option click changes it to Courier. That's all it would take to meet their desires. It doesn't matter why they want it that way (it may be historical aberration, but there certainly were good, very good, reasons for Courier in pre-computer days).

If you've spent a hundred hours writing what you think is a great story, why would you not spend the extra minute to present it in the format that a market requests? Why take the risk that they will look at it, see immediately that it doesn't meet their formatting requirements, and reject it out of hand? It doesn't matter whether or not you know what their reasons are for their particular formatting requirements (though it is a damn sight easier to mark up double-spaced Courier than single-spaced Times New Roman, as I know from scribbling my own revisions on printouts). It may well matter to them that "here is a person who appears to be unable or unwilling to follow simple instructions so why should we want to work with this person?".

I don't expect you to be swayed remotely by my arguments. I just hope to make others think about the subject.

I fear you've allowed yourself to become emotionally wrapped around the "process" axle when what you should probably be focusing on 99% is the craft aspect of your work.

The whole point of conforming to a given format, is to have the physical manuscript itself become "transparent" to editorial eyes, thus only your STORY itself will matter during reading. Anything physically odd or out of the ordinary about the manuscript is a potential distraction, and distractions increase the chances of rejection by a huge factor.

Standard Manuscript Format, as commonly demonstrated by William Shunn and Vonda McIntyre, is the industry standard. Writers have been warned for decades that straying from SMF -- for any reason, however noble or well-intentioned -- is to invite failure. How will you know your stories are even the things being rejected, if your format is what's really failing?

As for non-personal form rejections, they are simply a necessary evil given the size of the slush at any given market. And if your manuscripts are failing at the format level -- long before the story even gets read by an editor -- why would they bother to send anything other than a form rejection? By ignoring SMF you have demonstrated to these editors that you're not "serious" about your work, so they will give you the lowest common denominator rejection, nothing more.

The awful truth is that editors don't owe you a personalized explanation as to why you got rejected. In a perfect world, all of our stories would get a personalized and detailed rejection every time. Alas, this is not a perfect world. And nobody ever said that the writing 'game' would be fair, with rules and expectations followed by all. Publishing is a weird, imperfect world. You can either accept the weirdness and imperfection, and roll with it, or you can stand stalwartly athwart the weirdness and imperfection, yelling, "STOP!"...... and remain unpublished in defiant obscurity.

Robert, I have read some of your work at your web site. You are not a bad writer. I think your craft needs some punching up, like all of us, but you are not a bad writer. I suspect your disrespect for SMF, combined with refusal to "lower" yourself to playing the rejection letter game with the markets, is killing you -- long before your stories are read by anyone.

Now, you can stand behind integrity as an excuse, but I suspect that's all it really is: an excuse. I am going to propose that you're mature and advanced enough to step out from behind the excuse, forget the past -- as has been suggested by others -- and try to come at this with a fresh mind and fresh approach.

I know it's hard to break old habits and change your mind, and I know it's seductive: to just pawn off the many rejections and failures on the "broken" publishing system.

But trust me, as someone who has spent a good amount of time fumbling around in that "broken" system, and has found ways to make it work for him, I believe you owe it to yourself and your writing to swallow a bit of pride, clean your head out -- of egotistic ideas regarding artistic compromise -- and get back to basics. Use SMF on all submissions. Use Courier-type font. Aim for "transparent" physical presentation so that your STORY can sing. Fear no pro-paying market, whatever the guidelines might say. SMF is accepted everywhere.

Meanwhile, your comment about WOTF and "co-opting" didn't make any sense to me. Corruption? Still didn't make any sense. Are you saying that everyone who judges for WOTF or who is published in the anthology is 'corrupted' by the Contest? In what way? How is this demonstrated? The only factual evidence available suggests that WOTF is a yearly springboard for writing careers, with numerous names emerging from the anthology. Judges are among the top names in SF and F today. Larry Niven? Dave Wolverton? Jerry Pournelle? These are not gullible types, nor are they the sorts of writers who delight in leading newcomers down the wrong path.

Speaking for myself, once I put my nebulous and biased preconceptions about the Contest aside, entering the Contest was a no-brainer. And, as it turned out, it was a great move for my long-suffering writing career. I am damned glad I did it, and I am damned glad Dean Smith politely smacked me upside my head about some of the silly misgivings I was having about entering.

quote:

---

...That means not being a stolidly standing by relatively inconsequential principles such as font type, not mourning over every rejection letter, and being willing to let your work be edited to some extent.

---

I like what Osiris said here, about inconsequential principles.

Additional thoughts...

The publishing world is strange, but it is also not a prankster system run by pranksters. This is not a world whose purpose is to make you angry, look dumb, or run you around in circles. Editors and publishers are in BUSINESS and there are realities about BUSINESS that preclude the kind of pranksterish gamesmanship that some writers attribute to it. Once in awhile an editor or a publisher might be guilty of being dishonest or deliberately screwing with writers, but those people either learn better, or get sued, or simply go out of the field because their house fails, or they get fired. Ergo, bad business practitioners tend to be self-eliminating.

But why make all kinds of inferences and assumptions about the supposedly not-honest motives and operational habits of editors and publishers at all?

Professional editors don't ask for much. All they want is for you to write the best story you're capable of writing at this time, and to turn that story in to them in the established industry-standard format; with occasional caveats for market-specific guidelines.

You don't have to jump through hoops, go to ridiculous or stupid extremes, nor do you necessarily have to be an "insider" with gnostic connections to the publishing cognoscenti -- though knowing people does tend to help eventually, assuming you also make an effort to get out and meet a few editors and other writers, and don't maroon yourself in a cave of artistic solitude.

Again, the temptation will be great: to assume that the system is rigged, publishers and editors are fickle, backhanded operators who delight in confusing and/or insulting writers, and that this "broken" state of affairs is what's keeping your otherwise excellent prose from reaching an audience.

But if you've reached the point where you're inventing such theories to explain your rejections and failure, it's time to do a little shaving with Occam's Razor: the simpler explanation is that you're just failing on a craft or format level. Editors aren't rejecting you because they're mean, it's because your story is good and doesn't suit their taste, or the story suffers one or more failures at the craft level, or the story never even got read because of failure at the format level.

I won a first prize, I attended the workshop and awards banquet, and this was in 1996-97, and I have NEVER received one word of communication about Scientology from that time to this. Nor have I ever heard of anyone receiving any solicitations in the mail or by phone of ANY kind until Robert's post above. And there have been thousands and thousands and thousands of entries into the contest. In fact, while I was at the workshop I purposely asked a volunteer, who was a Scientologist, about Scientology because I'm a curious guy. It was just me and the volunteer--she was taking me to a convenience store. She wouldn't answer any of my questions, but politely steered the conversation to other topics. They were being extremely careful NOT to inject any of that into the contest.

BTW, the first page is stripped so that the judges are blind to who the author is, not to put you in their marketing database. So it's possible someone got Robert's address off of the submission, but it's equally possible this was simply a coincidence. Who knows? Maybe the Scientology folks purchased an advertising list with his name on it. From my experience, I tend to believe the latter or some other explanation. The WOTF folks have been nothing but gracious every time I've had any dealing with them. And the workshop and $2,000 payment for the story was nice too. I personally hope the contest goes another 100 years.

And in lending my endorsement, I'm not being co-opted by Nazi masterminds or filthy lucre, turning a blind eye to nefarious recruitment or brain-washing practices. The reason why so many independent-minded authors and editors are associated with the contest is because there is NO Scientology involved. It's not a proselyting scheme targeting aspiring authors. It's simply one of the best dang contests out there. Especially for new writers. And it's been that for 25 years.

quote:

---

it's time to do a little shaving with Occam's Razor

---

Brad, you just invoked one of my favorite principle of all time. In fact I reference it in the current story I'm working on.

When they're waving a check, and saying they want to see it in a different typeface...then we can talk.

*****

That the George Scithers-edited Asimov's handled rejections proves that it can be done---and that the editors of today are not doing it, for whatever reason or reasons---are they lazy?

Take another example---that nearly all SF novel publishers want novels submitted through an agent---and if that isn't laziness, I don't know what is.

*****

I would be willing to let my work be edited by someone else if someone else is willing to pay for the privilege. I have had no offers.

*****

I believe I have also followed "the routine" of submission. After a few lapses in the early years of my career, I pretty much stick to it. Here it is, as follows.

After finishing a story to my satisfaction, I print up a copy. I type up address labels for two big manila envelopes---one to send the manuscript to the market, and the other for the market to return the manuscript. I then put postage on both envelopes, put the manuscript and the return envelope in the send-envelope, then drop them in the drop slot at the post office where I have a P. O. box.

I send no notes or letters; I write nothing on the MS or envelope. I have no personal connections at these markets, and, though I am not fond of them because of previous rejections, I do not share this with them. I do not write nasty notes to them, complaining about my work being rejected. If I have some need to communicate something to the editors at the market in question, I'll send it separately.

I also detect not just a little contempt for the markets you potentially submit to. Again understandable if all you've ever gotten is faceless form rejections. The markets must seem mysteriously hostile, cold, implacable things to you? I sympathize with this feeling because I have often felt something similar.

Where you and I part ways is that your contempt for the markets appears to have bred a degree of contempt for the process overall, such that you're feeling offended by even minor aspects of standardization that don't jive with your personal preferences; a bit like if a Mad Men secretary refused to type up memos for Sterling Cooper because she prefers a red IBM Selectric, and they gave her a blue IBM Selectric.

Given your statements along these lines, I'm going to politely -- but very firmly -- suggest that it's long past time that you took several steps back from the entire project -- your writing for publication -- and considered the ways in which you yourself are getting in your own way. Because you are getting in your own way, make no mistake about it, and as long as you keep standing in your own way, I am afraid I must conclude that you are your own worst enemy. No wonder you've experienced so many years without progress.

Typeface
I used to use Times New Roman all the time, and wondered why I always got form rejections. Switching to Courier 12-point, and later Dark Courier 12-point, was a very small change which seems to have paid big dividends. Again, reference the SMF articles and examples by Shunn and McIntyre. Clinging to typeface, especially on artistic or personal pique grounds, is an awesomely self-limiting thing to do. See my Mad Men analogy above.

Cover Letters
It appears(?) you don't use a cover letter? Some editors don't want them, but as a way of demonstrating professionalism, I think cover letters can be a plus. They don't have to be wordy. In fact, the less wordy they are, especially since you have no pro credits, the better they will be. But a cover letter preceeding your manuscript is an introductory overture, like shaking hands. It's a way of introducing yourself to an editor and your lack of a cover letter -- like your refusal to adopt SMF -- could explain much about your rejections. Your cover letter is your "hello" to the editor, and refusing or forgetting to say 'hello' can hurt you.

Agents
This is the one area where I agree with you, in that the current agent-to-editor model is a BUSINESS -- not format, not craft -- dysfunctional model, and I don't care for it much either. My recent experience submitting novel packages to the Houses tells me that most of the Houses have re-opened their internal slush, somewhat on the down-low, and that you're violating no rules by submitting to the Houses directly. Form rejections may state they don't take unsolicited, unagented fiction, but as one of my rejections noted -- in a hand-written paragraph on just such a form -- if an editor thinks your work is promising, he or she will say so, and ask for more. Guidelines on the form rejections be damned.

But....
This does not excuse you from needing to adhere to more general rules of SMF. You still have to include a SASE -- whether its a novel submission or a story submission to a short market -- and in fact I am betting if you're sending out full-sized envelopes for full return of the MS you're creating more work for the editor than is necessary. You don't need your MS returned at all. Simply mark on your cover letter and on the first page of the manuscript -- DISPOSABLE MANUSCRIPT -- and include a business #10 envelope for their reply. They will send rejections and acceptances both this way, and it's a lot less toil for the editor. Yes, you have to re-print the story every time, but given the shrinking number of paper-sub markets, printing costs are minimal, and can be made up for on postage simply sending a single-stamped #10 SASE.

On matters of ego and expectation...
Again, I detect a degree of contempt on your part for the editors. Your pride seems to be talking here. All well and good if you never really want to get published. Hate the editors and the houses until the cows come home, it won't matter to them one bit because there are ten thousand other aspirant writers to replace you. Tilting at editorial windmills is a game for the foolish. You say editors are lazy, I say I sometimes agree, but whether or not editors are lazy is besides the point. Your stubborness will not change their habits. A truly "lazy" editor is an editor who will shortly be looking for a job, because the Houses need product and a lazy editor cannot find and procure quality product fast enough for the demand, hence a pink slip is in order. More probably the editors are just too damned busy to worry about whether a certain aspirant author demands a certain amount of coddling, above and beyond the ten thousands other authors jockeying for attention, so they move on without batting an eyelash. Bestselling blockbuster authors get special treatment, not aspirants. And sometimes, even the blockbusters have to follow 'stupid' rules and expectations. It's part of the business, as Osiris has noted. If you're hung up at this low level, how will you do when you have to deal with rules and expectations at a higher level?

The Bottom line:
Get out of your own way. Get your ego and your pride out of the picture. Find a way to take the decades of frustration and anger and futility, and flush those out to sea. Your resentment and your jaundice are your #1 obstacle right now, and if you continue to placate yourself in this regard you will continue to experience frustration and will not enjoy the experience. I almost went down the road you're on now. Almost. I almost let myself lapse into cynicism and take up small chips on my shoulder, over various aspects of process. It would be easy to conclude the editors are jerks and publishing is a sham racket. However, these are just distractions and excuses that allow us -- all of us -- to not have to grow beyond our own limitations. Every time we blame the system and form an excuse, we stunt ourselves. I believe this firmly, and I am afraid you will remain stunted unless you can find a way to emotionally get over the past, get over your picayune quibbling with certain aspects of process and certain market realities, and focus on craft and conforming to SMF modes.

Oh, and I do hope people are paying attention to John Brown's comments above. He's currently completing an excellent fantasy trilogy for TOR Books, and I think what he said about Writers of the Future is important -- if anyone still has any misgivings about the Contest and its connection to either the Hubbard estate, or Scientology.

Everything I've ever heard indicates that the Contest, while understably indebted to and praising of Hubbard the SF writer, takes pains to distance itself from Scientology. In the months since I found out I won, not a single Contest representative nor Scientology representative has approached me, called me, e-mailed me, etc, regarding Scientology. Period. Nor has anyone spoken with or contacted my family. If the Contest is a 'front' operation for the Church, as a tool of proselytizing, I find it curious that Brown and others have had zero experience with anyone trying to get them into the Church. Nor have I.

*****

Way back when, the powers-that-be insisted that cover letters were unprofessional. All I could say in it is "here is the story," and, if I remembered to put the story in the envelope, they already know that.

*****

quote:

---

...more work for the editor than is necessary....

---

Something I have to live with every day at where I work are large numbers of people who (1) don't do their jobs properly, and (2) make more work for me in the process. For something that's more-or-less a relaxing---and non-paying---hobby, I seem to be in a position of doing work that "makes it easy" for somebody else. When's someone going to make it easy for me?

*****

I suppose it must be disillusioning for a lot of you, having committed to a way-of-submission that appears to work for you, to find someone like myself who raises quesions about, and even defies, certain elements of your process.

*****

quote:

---

When's someone going to make it easy for me?

---

Second:
http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum13/HTML/000176.html

quote:

---

someone like myself who raises questions about, and even defies, certain elements of your process.

---

quote:

---

Way back when, the powers-that-be insisted that cover letters were unprofessional.

---

quote:

---

Way back when

---

Axe

quote:

---

If you can't beat them, join them.

---

I had approached this thread under the assumption that you were working towards professional publication. Your statement that you're just doing this as a non-paying hobby clears everything up entirely.

Hobbyists play by no rules because there are no standards to meet and no market to break into.

One of the unsaid and BIG reasons editors don't send out feedback on every story: too many aspirant authors take this feedback the wrong way, get angry, send anry mail, even threaten the editor. Dean sez that even nice editors who politely word or otherwise constructively critique, learn quickly to just send forms because too many times their honest effort is rewarded with anger, rage, hate, threats of violence, or worse.

Still, one day they'll read my purple-crayon-written bright-yellow-paper (with glitter pictures on every third page), and then who'll be laughing, eh? Eh?

(ETA - ask any big publisher slush reader and they will tell you they really DO get purple-crayon yellow-paper glitter-infested subs, presumably from people who think it will make them "stand out". Oh yes, it'll do that all right...)

It's nice to get feedback but if I get things like "this is probably the best-written story I have ever rejected" (which is a genuine quote from a pro rate mag editor), what does that actually mean in terms of helping me sell that story elsewhere?

Why would I do this?

1. To generate awareness (and sales) for the anthology. PARSEC, which underwrites us, will receive the proceeds. We hope to get the anthology to break-even status this year and take a little pressure off of them.

2. To find new and even better stories for the anthology. We already do a good job (at 2 cents a word), but it usually gets worrisome at the end of the process. Will we have enough stories to fill the collection? This year we barely did.

3. To help authors wanting to break into the anthology better see what we're actually looking for.

4. To help fellow writers as I am able.

I don't demand that the stories be intended for Triangulation, or even that they be genre in nature. I WILL limit them to 5,000 words (per copy purchased?).

If Hatrack folks are interested, let me know below and I'll post to this thread when the full details are ready - should be a couple weeks.

But I can look at it as a hobby, from the simple fact that it pays me nothing, and that I have also spent a good deal of money on it over the years.

*****

I'm also thinking that participating in the business of submitting to markets does not mean that I relinquish the right to question how business is done in these markets.

People have said to my face that I am stupid for not marketing many of the songs I have written. The recording/music business is the most pathetic, corrupt thing I've ever seen in my life. Strong statement, yes? Maybe you've seen what I have seen of it.

People who hear me perform want to be able to pop in a CD and hear the stuff I only sing live. They don't really care if I make any money, they just use that to try to sway me into the 'brothel'. Robert, I will NOT be swayed because I have determined for myself that it would be wrong for me, Doug. It ain't wrong for Mick Jagger, etc. I wonder what Janis Joplin would have to say about it now, if she could.

I don't mean to say that the publishing business is pathetic and corrupt. I am the youngling where that is concerned, at ground zero.

http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=1664

The short version?

It's one thing to question. But by subbing in TNR rather than Courier, you are arguably taking the equivalent step of submitting via email when the guidelines say not to. And I don't think anyone here who has complained about the big three not taking email subs has actually gone "well, email is good enough for me/lots of other markets, so I'll sub to them via email even though they explicitly say not to". They gripe about it, but they either refuse to sub, or they sub according to the guidelines as they exist.

*****

Those who have publication as a goal must consider matters of conformity on certain basic aspects of presentation.