Sixteen months ago, in September, 2014, I began shopping my latest story. It had been a long time since my last go-round marketing a short story, and while a lot had changed, a lot had stayed exactly the same.
What did change:
- Most markets accept electronic submissions and wrangle them either via Submittable or through their own submissions manager. While most also charge a small fee for this (around $3), that cost is only a little more than postage on a first class envelope and SASE, and is well worth the extra cost for convenience and assured delivery.
- A much larger percentage of markets accept simultaneous submissions, which increases the number of markets I can target in a given time period.
What didn’t change:
- Most markets still take a long time to respond. While a small number responded within a few weeks (one was within days), about 80% of markets took 3–6 months to reply, with one market still not responding after 8 months, when I decided to pull the plug.
- Rejections are as unhelpful as ever, perhaps even more so. Email automation means I have absolutely no tea leaves to read. Was the rejection from a staffer? From the editor? Was it on boiler-plate or editorial letterhead? Was there a note in the margin? A signature? None of these questions can be answered with a template-driven email rejection.
- Pay rates are still shockingly low for short story publication. Even in professional markets, you’d have to write four or five stories a month and sell them all to make a good living in short fiction. As for small/independent markets, you can still do little more than starve in style.
In these sixteen months, I submitted the story to over a dozen markets. That may not sound like much but it’s about four times what was possible back when simultaneous submissions were a major no-no. I submitted in batches of four or five markets at a time. Why not all at once? Simple: money.
I took a tiered approach to my submissions. First tier included markets with a professional pay rate, good reputation, and sizable (for literary markets) distribution. I also took print mags over those with only an electronic presence. Second tier was for those markets that were smaller and/or paid less. Third included e zines and “honoraria” providers. Et cetera.
I did not submit to those offering payment in “exposure” or complimentary copies. If I’m going to give it away for free, I’m going to do it myself.
Which is exactly what I’m going to do.
Sixteen months and over a dozen rejections is enough to tell me the market isn’t interested. Sure, there might be a small e-zine out there run by a thirty-something literary major working out of his parents’ basement who’d be thrilled to have my story, but I doubt the remuneration would be worth the effort of tracking him down through the Dark Net.
While I feel that my story is a good one, one that people would enjoy reading, that doesn’t mean other people—especially editors with a specific vision of what their magazine will offer—will agree with me. Just as the incredible popularity of superhero fiction on screen and in print leaves me totally baffled, I’ve come to accept that the “just not right for us” rejection response means, in many cases, exactly that. One person’s masterpiece is another’s waste of ink and paper and there is, in the end, no accounting for personal preference.
So, my short story, “The Book of Solomon,” has come home. I’ll give it a final edit and then decide what to do with it.
k
[…] this gave a much-needed boost to my own confidence, which has been sagging of late. Though response to my recent short story was decidedly lackluster, I’m enthused to get back to my own […]
LikeLike
[…] more true than with “The Book of Solomon,” my most recent short story, which I’ve recently ceased trying to sell to the “literary” markets, and instead have posted here for anyone who wants to read […]
LikeLike
Musicians are going begging (I don’t need to tell you that, do I Kurt? Sorry for stating the obvious), the art world is completely down the rabbit hole too. Actors? Well … and dancers?
What to do? Let’s all get together and … keep going. Remembering our history is a good first step; think Joyce for example.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except for the upper echelon of celebrity, everyone else in the creative art world seems to be struggling to get by. A number of artists I know have a spouse who acts as a de facto “patron,” and I know a (very) few who actually make their living at their art, but not many, and it’s always a struggle.
LikeLike
I think that “starving artist” is a “thing” for a reason.
I doubt art has *ever* paid a living wage, going all the way back to cave painting or whatever.
LikeLike
No, there were some, and are, of course. Look at the rich rock and rollers, movie stars, and bestselling authors. Money and fans galore. Definitely not starving.
What I see, though, is that the human drive to create art is so strong, we have a gazillion more artists than patrons, so the vast majority is indeed made up of ‘starving’ artists. And most of us dream of breaking into that by tiny minority.
LikeLike
“Look at the rich rock and rollers, movie stars, and bestselling authors”
I think most of those individuals are more correctly labeled entertainers, not artists.
People *will* pay to be entertained.
LikeLike
But isn’t that the goal of most artists? To entertain through acting, writing, music, dance? While some top echelon entertainers are not creating great “art” (in my lofty opinion), to paint all with that brush does a disservice to many.
Not to mention the thousands of musicians making a decent living in symphonies, dancers in ballet companies, and all the mid-list authors who, albeit not bestsellers, are all able to keep roofs over their heads and food on the table. These, too, are successful professional artists.
LikeLike
Or, more accurately, people will pay to be entertained so long as they don’t have to think too hard in the process.
LikeLike
Now THAT is a different thing altogether, and I agree: the majority of the populace does not want to think while being entertained. Hell, most don’t want to think, period. Most folks want to be told what is good; it’s the whole purpose of critics. Thumbs up? Let’s go see it. #1 bestseller? Let’s read it. Broadway smash? Get me tickets.
But despite the masses crying for their plebeian pap, their bread and circuses, it’s undeniable that true art is being created, albeit in smaller quantities. And I would argue that for every Michael Bay there are ten Zhang Yimous, for every James Patterson a dozen Donna Tartts.
LikeLike
I did say “most”. Not all. There are people actually trying. On the other hand:
“If there’s a steady paycheck in it I’ll believe anything you say.” (A quote from a not-dreck movie.)
Having said that, I’m of the suspicion that I perceive the output of the “economically elite” as often dreck — more often than other consumers might. That doesn’t mean I’m right about it.
LikeLike
Ah, you did say “most.” I misread that.
And if most of us saw the product of the top earners as dreck, I don’t think they’d be top earners! The market drives economic success, not artistic quality.
LikeLike
I’m finding one needs to make their name known first, not as author\writer, then people find interest. So, go base jump the Space Needle, get your name in the nationals for something else. Marshall McLuhan was right, get your name known and the world is your oyster.
At least it cracks slightly open the door into the room we’re trying so hard to see into and have others see us back. Marshall was even more correct about all that today. As time continues to slither forward it leaves many of us small fish in the slimy trail of the big and powerful. Those who have so little room for anymore to take on authors out of a lack of foresight and a desire to make publishing into a never fail commodity.
Or something like that.
LikeLike
It’s always possible for non-famous to become famous, but there are only so many spots available, and more and more of us vying for them.
Consider this: The New York Times listed about 100 “best sellers” in its fiction category for 2015. Compare that to the number of books published, which is close to half a _million_. And how many of those 100 bestsellers were from brand new authors? Few. Vanishingly few.
But in this Kardashian Reality, where you can be famous for being famous (or for being the child of someone famous), where true artistry is so devalued that “bestselling authors” need to solicit help with their medical bills, it’s no wonder we struggle.
I heard Bryan Cranston talk on a related topic the other day: auditions. I believe his advice is worth translating to the world of writing. A future blog post…
k
LikeLike
Yes, so true. Cranston…looking forward to reading it. 🙂
LikeLike