Simultaneous submissions: Should you sim sub or not?

My tongue-in-cheek approach the other day on how to kill a writing career generated a great response from readers. In fact, a number of people suggested additional ways to kill your writing career, including the use of cliches, mixed metaphors, and peppering every sentence with gerunds. All great suggestions, and all ones any writer desiring a swift end to their career should embrace.

However, there was one suggestion I disagreed with: The use of simultaneous submissions.

The person who emailed this suggestion was an editor who'd been burned before by sim subs. And as a former editor, I totally agree sim subs are annoying.  Especially when you devote a considerable amount of time to reading a manuscript, only to discover it has already been accepted elsewhere.

But from a writer's point of view--and especially from a new writer's view--sim subs are seen as a way to break through the massive wall supposedly guarding publishing nirvana. If you spend months or years working on a manuscript, you don't want to submit to one place and then wait months or years before hearing a response. Not when you can submit that manuscript to five places at once.

The pros and cons of this approach have been discussed to death (for starters, see here, here, and here). Basically, submitting to multiple places increases the odds of a publishing bite. But you also run the risk of burning your relationship with editors and publishers. Why?  Because while everyone says don't sim sub to places that don't allow the practice, we all know this is exactly what writers do.

So what should a writer do? If you feel you must sim sub, here are my suggestions:

• If you are a new writer, sim sub to the top magazines and publishers in your genre until you receive either an acceptance or personalized, positive feedback on your work. From then on, submit to that place first. Continue to sim sub to other markets until you either receive positive responses from them, or earn enough publication credits to become a more established writer.
   
• If you are an established writer (i.e., with a few good publications under your belt), never sim sub. The odds are now against you, and sim subs might end up biting you hard.

The reasoning behind my strategy is simple. The odds of a top magazine or publisher picking up a new writer's manuscript are rather low, so the odds of being burned are also low. By using sim subs you increase the odds of landing that first publishing bite, which is such a career boaster that it's worth the risk.

However, once you are somewhat established, you have built up enough of a relationship with editors and publishers, or enough of a reputation, that sim subbing is a bad risk. So at this point submit one place at a time.

Now comes the big caveat: Sim subbing isn't the best way to get published!

The best way to becoming a published author is to continually improve your writing, seek feedback from other writers, and build relationships in your genre. Everything else, including worrying about sim subs, is mostly a waste of time.

I tried both approaches in my career. Early on, I sim subbed my short stories to every publication that wasn't dead and stinking. I had a few bites--but nothing to write home about--and got burned once--but the burn didn't scar me for life. I was also lucky because the editor I burned wasn't working in the genre I now focus my writing on.

So sim subbing didn't do much for me.  Instead, I started landing decent publications when I no longer worried too much about submitting. When I focused on my stories first, and only worried about submitting after the story was the best it could be. I also began submitting to editors with whom I'd built enough of a relationship that I knew they'd give my work an honest read.

That's my advice. Take it for what it is. I'm far from an established writer, but I have enough experience and publications to have seen what has worked and not worked for me.

For the record, I no longer sim sub, and wouldn't consider doing so again. That said, I also don't think sim subs will destroy your writing career, and they might even help new writers.

But always remember that sim subs can never take the places of improving your writing and building relationships.

Comments

[Rachel Swirsky]

i think it's easier to simsub in mainstream markets because the stigma against it isn't so strong. they say "don't" but don't really expect you not to.

that's true for mainstream poetry, too. when i told one of my poetry profs that i didnt simsub mainstream poetry because i didnt want to burn the editors, she said, "why, do they have one of your kidneys?"

i didnt ever simsub as a general rule on genre markets that ask you not to because a) the actual dislike of simsub is much greater, so editors seem to be more likely to be annoyed if something goes wrong, but mostly b) the response times are short enough not to make it necessary. i was okay with waiting a couple weeks, or at most two or three months. there are sf/f markets that take longer, but not that many, and i never made much of a habit of submitting to them.

[T.W. Anderson]

Personally, I've never sim-subbed. Reading your perspective, I can understand why it might be worthwhile considering I'm just getting started in my fiction writing career (couple of indy sales only, and computer game work), but for me...I dunno.

This might sound silly but...I generally don't submit to the "top dogs". Why? It's not fear of rejection. I understand exactly why the big dogs in the industry use form letters...I just refuse to be graded on whether or not my stories have "made it" with the pro markets or not.

For example, I can't remember where it was that I was reading...but the post I'm thinking of talked about how, for example, Gardner Dozois doesn't even bother to really read the stories that come in when he's slushing. Instead, he looks through the cover letters and looks for SWFA membership. To him, the only thing that determines credibility is whether or not you have made "professional" sales. I think this is a flawed method. The stories should stand on the merit of the story, not on whether or not the author is making sales at the "special club" of SWFA-approved markets. (really need to remember where I read that thread, because it also talked about how several other editors discuss how they don't even bother to read cover letters because the story should be the important thing, NOT who the name behind the author is. A name means squat. I've seen horrid drivel published in the name of "pro", simply because it generates sales, and while I understand it...I choose not to participate.)

Meanwhile, there are other markets, both indy and semi-pro, who offer me personalized responses. I know my stories are getting read. For example...the first 6 months of me sending things in to places like Strange Horizons, Interzone, Asimov's, SF&F got me nothing but form rejections. And waiting. Lots of waiting. I turned around and went to the semi-pro....Neo Opsis, Ideomancer, Abyss and Apex, Andromeda Spaceways, places like this. You know what I noticed? Instant change. Form letter rejections became a thing of the past. I started getting personalized rejections from the assistant editors, and I wasn't waiting 4-6 months to hear back. I was hearing back in 3-4 weeks, getting personal feedback, and in many cases, actual story critiques and thoughts/ideas on how to improve the story.

My last two submissions received personalized rejections from the editors in chief of Abyss and Apex and Andromeda Spaceways, not just the assistant editors. While I still haven't made a sale in the semi-pro market (only the indy market to-date), I look at it this way: I'm not in this for the money, not yet. My freelance career pays more than enough to keep my wife and I traveling throughout Europe and enjoying life, and allowing me plenty of free time to work on my passion, which is fiction. And while I'd love to eventually make it "big" in fiction, I can't stand the way the professional market works. It's a special club, and as can be seen by the way certain editors work, the only way your work is given more than a token glance is if you are already IN the club. Which makes it almost impossible to break into. And, as you discussed with your previous article about Clarkesworld, for example, when half of the submissions are taken up by staff members, the percentages for getting published in a pro zine are fractions of a percentile.

Form letter rejections do not tell me how to become better as a writer. Form letter rejections do not establish a relationship. Form letter rejections do not inspire me to want to continue submitting to a publication. Form letters do nothing but tell me that the magazine is interested in sales, not the quality of the fiction.

Understandably, from a business side of things, sales are important for the longevity of a zine, but everyone knows that places like Lone Star, despite being a token-paying market while it was still going, published (in some cases) far higher-quality stories than the "pro" market zines, because they were actually taking the time to READ the stories being sent in, not just glance at the cover letter and see whether or not the author is a big enough name to be generating sales.

I'm more interested in building relationships. You are right about one thing...the first place I send my submissions these days are the markets where the editors have actually BOTHERED to read my previous submissions and give me an actual REASON why they felt it wasn't good for their publication. I refuse to be brushed off like a gnat buzzing around a plate of food, and if that means I'm relegated to the semi-pro and indy market for now, I'm fine with that. I'm looking for ways to improve my writing, and I agree that the only way you can do that is find editors who are actually going to take the time to read your work and help you along the path.

I can definitely appreciate the other side of the fence. When I was running a construction company in Colorado my lowest paid employee made 33 dollars an hour, and when someone came through the door looking for a job I had a very Gardner Dozois response: if their resume didn't include 4-5 years experience working what I considered credible jobs, I turned them away. Why? Because my business specialized in high-end residential homes in the ski resort towns and along the Front Range, and I couldn't be bothered to hire a guy who'd been in jail 4 times and couldn't get a job anywhere else to save his life, whose only experience was setting tile for companies who specialized at commercial applications like in McDonald's or malls/airports. I needed highly specialized craftsmen.

So yes...I GET why the pro markets work the way they do. I understand it, completely. I just choose not to be a statistic. I want my stories read. I want personalized feedback from editors. I'm looking to establish relationships.

For example, I had money to burn at the end of 2009, so I turned around and got in touch with some editor and author friends of mine and started a spec-fic quarterly magazine. Our first issue will be out in March. This is a side project outside of my freelance writing and fiction writing. The main reason we started the zine was to focus on one thing, and one thing only: providing a place where writers can send in their work and know that 100% of the time they are going to get a personalized response back from our editors within a TIMELY fashion. We will ALWAYS read the story, regardless of who the name on the cover letter is. We do that by controlling reading periods and focusing on quality, not quantity.

I don't think writers should be forced to sim-sub. To me, that just suggests the system is broken, that it doesn't work. I know it's just my opinion, but that's how I feel about it, and why I choose not to even bother sending my stuff in to the pro markets for now, because I know I'm not a "big enough" fish to make it past the form letter rejection stage. Maybe in another year after I've made another half dozen sales or so, but for now...I'm happy where I'm at, because I'm establishing actual relationships with editors, not subjecting myself to a farcical system where the odds are stacked against me.

(apologies in advance for any grammar flubs. This was written pre-workout and pre-coffee, so eyes/hands are still flubbery.

[T.W. Anderson]

Just read Rachel's response:

Looking at your comment regarding places that take too long to get back to you...I have to admit, I'm about ready to sim-sub one of my adventure fantasy short stories. Why? I submitted to the place back in June of 2009. They are supposedly one of the most lucrative markets for fantasy. I got an auto-reply back that my sub was received...and then nothing. It is now mid-January of 2010, and I haven't heard a word back from them regarding my submission.

Now, I could be a good little writer and not sim-sub, but here's the way I look at it: you can't expect me to sit on a story for 6+ months. This isn't the 18th century where we relied on frickin' horse-post. This is the 21st century. All it takes is 5 seconds (at most) to send a form letter telling me whether or not the story has been accepted, rejected, or is on hold.

As a general rule, I don't submit places that take longer than 3-4 weeks to get back to me. As a result, I haven't relied on sim-subbing yet, because I have a few stories in circulation, and as a general rule every week or so I'm hearing back from one magazine and sending it back out to another, and I have a really long list that I simply circulate through until I get a positive response. Every time I finish a new story I send it out to the top of the list and get it rotating in the circulation.

With this particular publication it was one of the few places focusing on adventure fantasy, and I was pretty sure I'd hear back from them within a timely manner despite their "3-5 month" claim. Only now it's been close to 7 months and I've still heard nothing, and one of my writer friends said he had another friend who submitted to the same zine...and didn't hear back from them for over 12 months before they finally told him they had rejected his story.

I don't consider archaic response times worth of my career, regardless of the credibility of the particular organization. If I haven't heard back by the end of the month I'll be sim-subbing that story, simply because I'm not going to wait 7 months to hear a yes/no/maybe response that could have been sent out in the 5 seconds it takes to write an e-mail address, copy/paste the form, and hit send.

So, with this particular publication...lesson learned. If I ever do submit to them again I'll be sim-subbing the same story to other places, places I know will get back to me in 3-4 weeks. I don't have the time or the inclination to wait on people who can't run a business in a timely manner.

[Jason Sanford]

One of the major reasons writers sim sub is the long response times from many magazines. While I don't have statistics to back this up, I'd be willing to bet that professional magazines with fast response times--F&SF and Clarkesworld, for example, which both respond in 1 day to a week or so--have very low sim sub rates. If all magazines responded in two weeks or less on subs, there would be few writers who'd use sim subs as a strategy.

As I mentioned, I no longer sim sub, and when I look back on when I did it it's obvious I both wasn't ready to be published and wasn't acting like a professional writer. So my advice is to not do it. But if you do, consider the risks and benefits, as mentioned above.

[T.W. Anderson]

Perhaps I'm a bit naive on this side of things, but to be honest...in the circles I run, I don't know of anyone who sim-subs. Or if they do, I'm not aware of it. I had never even contemplated it until about a month ago because I was tired of waiting on this particular story, and when my writer buddy told me one of his friends waited over TWELVE months to hear back from the particular publication regarding his submission...well.

It's all well and good if places are getting back to you within a few weeks, but when you start talking 3-4 months...that's just archaic and beyond ridiculous in the 21st century. I can't see how these publications can expect people to realistically NOT sim-sub.

[Mary]

I've done it a few times but only with magazines that are incredible slow. I also think there is a generation gap in doing this with younger writers doing it more than older. Young writers don't see the need to wait six months for a response on their submissions.

[Jeff VanderMeer]

It's pretty simple. If a publication says they don't take simultaneous submissions and you do send them simultaneous submissions, you're a dick.

JeffV

[Robert Laughlin]

Market info sites such as Duotrope and Ralan's can tell you which markets allow simultaneous submissions and which ones don't; it's a simple process to single out the simsub-friendly markets and submit only to them. Of course you realize that most professional markets are not simsub-friendly, so this will restrict your choices if you want to place a story where it matters most.

[Rachel Swirsky]

"Of course you realize that most professional markets are not simsub-friendly."

not true of mainstream markets.

[Jason Sanford]

Aw jeez Jeff, did you have to cut right through the discussion by using such blunt logic. :-)

Yes, I totally agree people shouldn't sim sub to places that frown on the practice. But the reality is many writers are dicks--even if kindly ones--and do sim sub to places that don't allow it. My suggestions above were based on taking that dickdom reality into account. It's kind of like abstinence only sex education. A great idea in theory, but not so great in dealing with what people really do.

[Rachel Swirsky]

"It's kind of like abstinence only sex education. A great idea in theory"

Is it? I've got to go with Amanda Marcotte on this.

"but not so great in dealing with what people really do."

Well, I think "just say no to simsubs" leaves out the fact that some markets have response times that go past long and into short-story-eating. I'll go ahead and follow the inevitable dickdom rules and call one out. Black Gate, cut that shit out. Hire two more slush readers. Bioengineer some kind of goat that eats submissions and shits out stamped rejections. Do whatever you got to do. Your response times aren't cute, and a little retaliatory simsubbing is the inevitable price to pay.

[Rachel Swirsky]

My link got eaten! Amanda Marcotte on abstinence education - http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/people_are_still_afraid_to_say_go_for_it/

[Ann Leckie]

T.W. Anderson said--***Gardner Dozois doesn't even bother to really read the stories that come in when he's slushing. Instead, he looks through the cover letters and looks for SWFA membership. To him, the only thing that determines credibility is whether or not you have made "professional" sales. I think this is a flawed method. The stories should stand on the merit of the story, not on whether or not the author is making sales at the "special club" of SWFA-approved markets.****

You have mistaken Mr Dozois' auto-pass policy for his story-selection policy. Pretty much any editor with a slush reader pulls out certain subs that bypass the slusher entirely. In this case, Dozois considered SFWA pro status a sufficient reason for reading the story himself, rather than leaving the call to the slush reader.

This is emphatically not the same thing as not paying attention to stories subbed by non-SFWA pro writers.

I can guarantee you that not one single pro or reputable semi-pro publication rejects subs unread. Not one. If F&SF or Asimovs or SH rejected you, they did so because of your story. Which I guarantee you someone on the editorial staff read.

****So yes...I GET why the pro markets work the way they do***

No, you don't. Because the pro markets don't work the way you think they do. Seriously. No, really.

****The main reason we started the zine was to focus on one thing, and one thing only: providing a place where writers can send in their work and know that 100% of the time they are going to get a personalized response back from our editors within a TIMELY fashion. We will ALWAYS read the story, regardless of who the name on the cover letter is.****

I wish you the best of luck, sincerely I do. But I'd like to point out that your focus is a bit backwards. While of course you want to treat writers--the suppliers of your product--professionally and respectfully, and of course doing so will give you a good reputation and encourage writers to work with you, writers are not, in fact, your customers. Your focus on treating writers well is admirable, but any publication with the primary goal of pleasing writers is kind of like a restaurant with the primary goal of pleasing their suppliers of meat and produce. You want to deal with them in a courteous and professional manner, and pay the bills on time, but really the folks you're trying to please are the customers that eat at your establishment. I say this as a writer myself. I want to be treated courteously and professionally, but in the end, I am not the customer.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Cheers, Ann.

A couple additions:

Pro markets look at work from people with no sales. You don't already have to be in the club. Ann and I both made our first sales to pro markets.

Editors do buy work that their slush readers pass up to them. If you'd like to see some examples of how this works in action, try subscribing to Doug Cohen's livejournal.

Finally, on the subject of form letters -- it's not an editor's job to advise writers on how to improve short stories. That's what critique groups are for. Some editors are nice enough to give you a few sentences -- sometimes even a few paragraphs -- but this is beyond their call of duty. You shouldn't be sending work to markets because you want a critique on it. You should be sending out because you think it's already good enough to be published.

A form letter means, "No, this is not right for my magazine." It doesn't mean the magazine is "sales-driven" or not interested in "quality stories." What it means is that your story does not work for them.

Although a magazine doesn't need to provide personal notes in order to prove that they're interested in new authors and quality work, I will note that if pro markets are moved to send you a note -- or even a critique -- then they will. Even if you have no credits, even if they've never met you at a convention, even if they don't know your name, even if they are very busy, even if they are sending rejections on tiny scraps of paper so they have to write their notes by hand in tiny block letters that you'll need a magnifying glass to decipher. If they haven't sent such notes to you, that doesn't mean that they will not send them to anyone, or even that they won't eventually send them to you. They just haven't yet.

By the way, I did get your email... I'm awful at responding to emails, but I will get to it. I don't know why it's so much easier for me to write blog comments than emails!

[Leah Bobet]

The market I run asks people not to sim sub. While I'm sure there are rationales that writers can work up as to why they shouldn't follow that part of my guidelines, if I catch someone doing it -- and I have -- it's pretty much guaranteed that they will never sell a story to me anywhere I edit. It's that simple.

You can't abide by the most basic of requests? You go home.

[Robert Laughlin]

Re Rachel Swirsky's entry dated January 14, 521 PM:

Ms. Swirsky, it IS true that mainstream markets usually don't allow simultaneous subs. If you will consult Duotrope's search engine, you will find that 48 short fiction markets paying professional rates to all contributors are listed as "Mainstream". Only 18 of them, 37.5% of the whole, allow simultaneous subs. In future, Ms. Swirsky, do not dispute with me until you have armed yourself with the facts.

[T.W. Anderson]

I wasn't going to name names, but you went ahead and dropped it, Rachel :) The publication I referenced was indeed Black Gate. It's ridiculous. I wrote the story a few years back, finally started sending it out...had a couple of nibbles, but decided I wanted to see if I could get it sold at a more "professional" market.

Here I am, 7 months later. And dealing with the horror story of a writing friend who said he has another pal who waited over 12 months to even get a REPLY back from them. It's a freakin' joke.

No worries about the e-mail reply. I actually had another couple of editors get back to me the following day with a list of places I can have our PR person send the zine out for reviews when the first issue is ready, but if you know more...I'm always willing to know of more markets.

@ Anne: I haven't misunderstood anything. I don't agree that editors of zines should be using status or names to determine whether or not they want to read a story personally, or wait for their slush editors to read it and pass it on up. I fall on the side of the editors who believe that ALL stories should be given equal merit based upon the story itself, not whether or not someone has affiliation with the boy's club. I think it's a flawed system. I understand WHY he does it...I just don't agree.

(random comments not pointed at anyone in particular)

Agree to disagree with what form letter rejections are :)

Also agree to disagree with what an editor's job is. An editor is there to see if a story is good enough to be published, and if it is, to accept it, and if it's not, to either reject it OR to help guide the author in question to get it ready for that particular publication (if the story is salvageable). An editor's job is to look for those diamonds in the rough, and to take those and help the writer polish them until they shine.

Yes, the brunt of the polishing work lies with the author, but the editor is there to point out the flaws. That's their job. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need editors to stand between the writers and the actual published work. Writers would be submitting straight to the publishers and no one would ever need to look at their work and point out possible flaws or things that need to be fixed. Editors ARE a critique group...they are just the final one along the way.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Robert -- The "professional" bar for literary markets is not usefully arbitrated by pay rates. It's arbitrated by more nebulous factors, mostly involving reputation. See Mamatas on the subject -- http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/1407128.html

A large number of the markets which mainstream writing professionals compete for space in are affiliated with universities. Their pay trends low for various reasons which have been expanded on elsewhere recently (and at length), and their reputations vary based on a number of factors, none of which have to do with pay rate. A large number accept simultaneous submissions.

[Rachel Swirsky]

"Agree to disagree with what form letter rejections are" -- I don't think agreeing to disagree is particularly useful here. It's not like we're talking about a nebulous philosophical matter. This is a factual issue. F&SF, ROF, Asimovs, etc. do not send form letters to people because it's uninterested in finding quality stories by new authors. The fact that they pick up quality stories by new authors on a regular basis falsifies this assertion, as does the fact that they regularly send non-form letters to new authors of quality stories.

In deference to Sanford's space, I'll leave the conversation here, but I want to end on a strong assertion: form letters are in no way a marker indicating that a venue is "more interested in sales than quality." (Not, of course, that being interested in sales is a bad thing; I certainly hope that pro markets are interested in sales as I would like them to stay in business.)

[Ann Leckie]

@TW***@ Anne: I haven't misunderstood anything. I don't agree that editors of zines should be using status or names to determine whether or not they want to read a story personally, or wait for their slush editors to read it and pass it on up. I fall on the side of the editors who believe that ALL stories should be given equal merit based upon the story itself, not whether or not someone has affiliation with the boy's club. I think it's a flawed system. I understand WHY he does it...I just don't agree.***

You know, when I first started submitting I thought that when my stories didn't pass the slushreader--and they didn't, with distressing uniformity--that if only it had been passed up and really been read by the real editor, I might have had a chance.

Now I've been around the block a few more times, and have talked to different editors and slushreaders, and have read slush myself. One thing I've learned--and this was a hard lesson for me, it went against all my writerly belief in my work, and my ego-defences--is that if the slushreader doesn't pass it up, the editor would not have bought it. The End.

The slushreaders do give attention to the stories--and the ones that they know have absolutely no chance with the editor, they turn back. This is not a random process--they know from the start what the editor wants and doesn't want, and by and large are fairly generous with what they pass up.

Your slushpile, when you start, will be pretty small. The slush at one of the pro venues you listed? Is a soul-destroying amount. There's no way an editor can get through it without a reader. That's why they all have slushreaders--not because they have some philosophy of publishing or reading and want to be exclusive or some sort of private club, but because the vast majority of slush is easily excluded--wrong genre, blatantly not the sort of thing the magazine is looking for, laughably bad, etc--and the editor has better things to do than sort through all that. A good slushreader can also filter out the next level of stuff, the stories that aren't at the Bulwer-Lytton level, but still not up to standards or fatally flawed somehow.

I really hate to say this baldly, and I don't mean it as an insult, but if you consistently can't get past the slushreaders, it's not a sign that there's a problem with their paying attention to your work, it's because your work isn't there yet. You may reach your full powers as a writer and still not sell to any of those pro mags--but I'm betting you'd start hopping the slushers, at least every now and then.

***Also agree to disagree with what an editor's job is. An editor is there to see if a story is good enough to be published, and if it is, to accept it, and if it's not, to either reject it OR to help guide the author in question to get it ready for that particular publication (if the story is salvageable). An editor's job is to look for those diamonds in the rough, and to take those and help the writer polish them until they shine.***

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. An editor isn't interested just in "good enough." Just for starters, any science fiction publication that receives a brilliant non sfnal murder mystery will turn it down, not because it wasn't good enough but because it didn't fit the aims of the magazine. There will be zillions of stories like that--great work, but don't fit this particular magazine's intent, or great work that's too similar to something they ran last month, or great work that's just not making the editor's heart race, or....

It's all well and good to say such things shouldn't apply to art, to our writing, that audience and money shouldn't be involved, but in that case, why pay for stories at all? Why send them anywhere? Why not post them on your blog and be satisfied at your artistic purity?

And I'm suppressing myself from writing an essay about the privilege involved in the whole "Art should be immune to the depredations of filthy lucre" thing. Maybe I'll post one on my LJ next time I need a cat to vacuum.

Instead I'll just say--by and large artists want people to see their work. Writers want to be read. What's the point, if nobody reads the story? And that's what zines provide--an audience. That's a huge value, if a zine can deliver readers. That's why those prozines are so coveted--they have lots of readers, your story will land in thousands of mailboxes across the country and the world. Or the more prestigious semi-pros may not have as many readers, but they've still got a respectable audience.

You attract that audience any way you can--but you need to attract that audience. The editor's job is not just to bestow blessings on deserving stories, it's to pick stories that her audience will like, so they keep coming back for more.

This is not a matter of crass comsumerism, this is a matter of what publishing fiction is for. It's not for the writers, it's for the readers.

Now, that's not to say that a new small zine isn't welcome--you might find an audience with quirky tastes similar to yours and be good at filling just that niche for them, and writers who write the sort of thing your readers like will benefit. But still, ultimately, the readers are the point of the whole thing. Otherwise you're just singing in an empty room. Which, you know, is fine for some of the time, but every now and then it's nice to have an audience.

And if you really believe that the Purity of Art is such that any audience is irrelevant, why are you bothering to send things out, or publish anything? You might as well lock your stories in a drawer, or post them to your blog, and enjoy your Artistic Integrity.

That last paragraph is a trifle ill-tempered, but I am restraining myself on the topic of Pure Art and Filthy Lucre.

I do genuinely wish you success in your venture.

[Jason Sanford]

As an editor who has both been a slush reader and had slush readers reporting to him, it's not been my experience that slush readers prevent good fiction from reaching the main editor. Every slush reader wants to pull the award-winning story from the slush pile. Every editor wants to discover the exciting new writer.

In my opinion, the biggest obstacle to new writers being published isn't the slush reader, but instead the vast numbers of stories in the slush pile. When you are competing against 1000 other stories, then it is more difficult for your tale to receive the reading all stories deserve, no matter how dedicated the editor. That's why new writers have to keep writing and keep networking and keep submitting. That's how you eventually cause your stories to rise from the slush pile.

[John O'Neill]

> Black Gate, cut that shit out. Hire two more slush readers.
> Bioengineer some kind of goat that eats submissions and shits
> out stamped rejections. Do whatever you got to do.

You know, I thought I'd tried everything. But that bioengineered goat is a new one. And more sensible than some of the options I've considered, believe me.

Black Gate has no problem with sim subs, as we've stated in the past. Given our response times, it would be a little ridiculous to do otherwise. And it's never caused us any problems (so far).

But I don't speak for other publications, obviously. Do your homework.

John

[Rachel Swirsky]

I didn't know that, John, and I should have. Thanks for correcting me, and good for you for accepting simsubs.

Not that I don't think you should improve your response time, but I think I already covered that. :-P

[Rae Bryant]

I'll just add a positive example of how simsubs can work. I've simsubbed to a market I really like, who allows simsubs, and had to withdraw the work because it was accepted elsewhere.

I simsubbed to this same market again and had to withdraw, again, within a day because this second work was accepted elsewhere.

I emailed the editor, who had already expressed disappointment because she had liked the withdrawn works, and so she asked me to submit another work, exclusively, promising that she would review it and get back to me as quickly as possible.

If the market allows for simsubs, it can be a positive interaction, too, as long as the writer lets the market know ASAP when the piece has been published elsewhere.

[John O'Neill]

>I didn't know that, John, and I should have. Thanks for
>correcting me, and good for you for accepting simsubs.

Actually Rachel, my fault that you didn't know. I thought it was clearly stated in our Guidelines, but it appears it's not stated at all (clearly or otherwise). We've mentioned it a few times on the blog and the BG newsgroup, but that hardly counts.

I've corrected the situation by specifically stating we accept simsubs in our online guidelines.

>Not that I don't think you should improve your response time,
>but I think I already covered that. :-P

Oh, I know, believe me. I hired Howard Andrew Jones as a slush reader a few years ago, but he had the poor grace to sell two novels last year, and retire to become a full time writer. Where's the love?

John