"Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

September 08, 2004, 01:15:52 PM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... r> This article notes that sales are down for science fiction books and for print pubs (e.g. Analog, down to 40k copies per month from a peak of 120k copies per month circa 1984), and that much of the genre is now more fantasy oriented than realistic near-future extrapolation. (... mea culpa on the Al Majius series, but some of my stuff is as 'hard' (based on real science and technology as I can make it ...) Read the article within the next week or so -- after that it goes into the website's archives and will cost $. Robert M.

Post by **kailhofer** » September 08, 2004, 02:05:56 PM

Well, clearly Science Fiction as a genre isn’t dead. Anybody who’s seen a Star Wars movie or turned on the Sci-Fi channel lately can tell you that. The question is whether or not printed Science Fiction for pay is on the ropes or not. As someone who’s spent a lot of time trying to sell stories to Sci-Fi markets over the past 20 years, I can tell you the situation is grim indeed. There are more Fantasy and far more Horror markets than Sci-Fi. More people will be struck by lightning than will break into the big SF markets this year. Printed Sci-Fi is alive and well in beloved ‘zines such as this one, where no one pays for it. Perhaps this all fits in with my “Icezoid” rant, in that Sci-Fi publishers have forgotten what made SF great in the first place and replaced it with social commentary. Perhaps its an offshoot of the economic times. (Since people won’t call this a Depression, will they call it The Great Recession?) I suppose time will tell, or someone will invent a new way to make money with online fiction. Nate

September 08, 2004, 03:03:38 PM

Well, clearly Science Fiction as a genre isn’t dead.

Anybody who’s seen a Star Wars movie or turned on the Sci-Fi channel lately can tell you that...

Nate

The body of the article notes that the two subgenres that are doing well are fantasy (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.) and 'space opera' (with the Star Wars media empire that straddles both categories, and Star Trek, Andromeda, and Farscape (2 of which are no longer being produced), among other examples). 'Space opera' is characterized as being set far in the future or in some other milieu distant in space and/or time, so it is not connected to any current science or technology. The Star Trek: Enterprise series and the Star Trek: First Contact movie at least try to relate the Trek universe to our near future, but still assume the existence of other more advanced cultures from which at least the concepts underlying transporters and FTL drives could be borrowed. In print, there are a few very 'hard' SF writers who are at least making a decent living (I hope), including Allen Steele (touted by some as a successor to Heinlein), Robert Sawyer (who is quoted in the Globe and Mail article), and Michael Flynn (author of the Firestar series detailing the development of privately-financed space programs). The article points out (a) that we have caught up to the timeframe of some classic SF (e.g, 1984, 2001, some of Heinlein's Future History timeline) and have been disappointed by how little of the everyday tech has been realized (hence some of the decrease in sales), and (b) the pace of real technological and scientific change has accelerated to the point that it is damn hard for an author to write something that is plausibly based in current knowledge, but far enough ahead that real-world developments won't render it obsolete in a few years. As authors, we can't just wing it anymore -- we have to research our hindquarters off to try to find the bleeding edge of things and then push it further if we want to produce 'hard' SF. Meanwhile, the 'technothriller' genre may be nibbling at the edge of hard SF, usually setting things in the very near future (i.e., less than 10 years out) and postulating gadgetry that at least seems like it could be developed sometime soon. The Nightwatch series (so far, at least) tends to fall in this category, although some of the gadgetry and developments are at best EWAGs (Educated Wild-Assed Guesses) or just plain fiction (the Dragon's Egg). One wonders what (if any) categories of fiction are growing these days... Maybe the next generation will be too wrapped up in interactive, immersive entertainment (Everquest, The Sims, etc.) to be bothered using their naked, Mark 1 imaginations to get into a book or short story. (Sigh) Maybe Fahrenheit 411 will never come to pass simply because there won't be any paper-and-ink reading materials produced anymore (for lack of commercially-viable levels of interest). Robert M. (Just think -- someday, the only 'readable' (text) fiction produced may turn out to be 'for the luv'. That'll be my excuse for nobody paying for my stuff. You'll have to come up with something different, 'cause I'm slapping a copyright on that sucker.)

Post by **kailhofer** » September 08, 2004, 03:41:58 PM

One wonders what (if any) categories of fiction are growing these days... Maybe the next generation will be too wrapped up in interactive, immersive entertainment (Everquest, The Sims, etc.) to be bothered using their naked, Mark 1 imaginations to get into a book or short story.

I have high hopes for electronic ink, and that it might revitalize writing by freeing readers from the usual publishers. E-ink, if anybody hasn't heard of it, is micro-encapsulated beads in tiny drops of ink that as electro-magnetic fields are applied to it, the ink will change colors, either by flipping over or by the beads rising within the droplet, depending on the manufacturer. That is, a sheet of paper or plastic is printed with what looks like solid white ink. It's hooked into its plastic frame, and fields are applied to it, and viola! words and pictures appear on the page--potentially our words, our fiction. The ink requires no electricity when it's not changing (making publishing cheaper), and is just as easy to read as any other sheet of paper (since a lot of people complain that reading online is too hard on the eyes to really be popular). It's kind of like carrying your own personal data pad that you could connect to the Net, but it's just one piece of paper that changes by itself. Remember the moving pictures in the Daily Prophet of Harry Potter fame? You could do that with e-ink, although you'd have to put the paper in a frame. Now, when that comes to pass (cell phones are supposed to be the first step--so save on energy consumption), who gets read may well depend on who best distributes the information in the most readable format. Webzines like Aphelion may be mainly read in e-ink, at least until the next time the page refreshes. E-book publishers, or more likely, data warehouses may eventually be the future of fiction. I say that because I believe that e-books need this technology to really make a lot of money, but I don't think those publishers have the infrastructure and connections to be powerful enough in the marketplace, like data warehouses are now. Nate (This from someone who's family has been printers for three generations! Grandpa would be spinning in his grave if he hadn't been a SF fanatic, too.)

Post by **kailhofer** » September 08, 2004, 03:53:28 PM

is this technology for real or are you pre-empting april 1st?

The technology has been around since 1997. Check it out at: http://www.eink.com/ (I forget the name of the other manufacturer, where it's a two-sided bead, white on one side & color on the other, that flips over, instead of rising to the top.) Nate

September 10, 2004, 09:46:04 AM

"The Sentinel" was one of Clarke's short stories. It became the inspiration that 2001 sprang from.
Dan

Damned if I can remember the collection it was included in, but the story essentially depicted the discovery of an artifact on the moon which triggered the transmission of a signal ... Interestingly enough, the artifact in the story was a pyramid (or a tetrahedron?), but Kubrick decided that the monolith shape (with its 1:4:9(?) proportions) would be more impressive on screen. Robert M.

September 10, 2004, 11:17:15 AM

"Fahrenheit 411"? Whose number was Ray looking for?

Oh, crap. I knew that sounded wrong somehow. Congratulations on being the first person to notice the error. Fahrenheit 451 - "the temperature at which book paper burns". (Considering the varying types of paper in use these days, I wonder if that statement still applies.) Robert M.

September 10, 2004, 11:46:01 AM

That jogs my memory. I remember reading the short story a few years ago, and there was a notation that the story inspired 2001. That's probably how I got the idea that The Sentinel was the original title of 2001. But when I looked up both titles on the internet, I couldn't find any mention of a connection between the two, and thought my memory might be tricking me--which it does sometimes.

Donald

I seem to recall one of those "The Making of"-type books (or maybe an article in a magazine, or even an editorial blurb in the story collection where "The Sentinel" appears) that contained the anecdote in my earlier post (re: pyramid vs. monolith shape) ... Robert M.

Post by **kailhofer** » September 11, 2004, 01:31:58 PM

<>

Maybe writers like Asimov, Heinlein, and van Vogt used up all the good ones.

If we truly believed that, why would we all be here as writers? [Fox Mulder voice] Ideas are out there. 8) If Douglas Adams could turn Sf on its ear bewteen 1979 & 1992, it's pretty obvious that the "greats" didn't use up all the Great Ideas. The author of Mary Poppins, P. L. Travers (born Helen Lyndon Goff aka Pamela Lyndon Travers), said she always thought ideas found you, not the other way around. So, if you want an idea to spot you, don't hide from it. Nate

September 12, 2004, 11:04:14 AM

re Mars, Venus etc, I usually just swap the planet in my mind for some as yet unnamed one. But sadly, even the stories themselves will have storytelling faults that are on a par with the science , "pre golden age", and sometimes even in it.

--TaoPhoenix

There was a Filmation (the guys that did the old Star Trek animated series) series based on Heinlein's Red Planet (which was set on Mars, if I recall correctly). As TaoPhoenix says, they just changed the name of the planet to get around the current knowledge of conditions on Mars. Robert M.

Post by **kailhofer** » September 15, 2004, 03:52:22 PM

What we *DO* have is nifty gadgets. I thought about doing a story with "real" technology that most people haven't had daily contact with. That magic ink is one. My Audio Scifi system is one. A company I worked at had an automated Robotic-ish mail carrier with its own magnetic track on the company floor. I once saw a talking trash can in a mall. (scary!)

Speaking of neat gadgets, did anyone else see the news story about flowers being used as audio speakers? http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.j ... >Religions of the world, look out. Add some pyrotechnics and now anyone can make a burning bush speak. Nate

Post by **kailhofer** » September 17, 2004, 11:12:15 AM

The future of publishing isn't as grim as you might think. It's still quite possible to break into the big mags: F&SF, Asimov's, Analog, etc..., even as a new writer. The big editors are looking for new writers.

Yeah. Right. Give me an editor's name & I can probably give you a copy of their rejection letter. I think my favorite is Gordon Van Gelder's at the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction (circ. 70,000). It looks personal, in that it just didn't grab his interest, until you get another one exactly the same. Nate

September 17, 2004, 11:35:07 AM

... Can one make a living solely on poetry? No, why should you? Even if you were to be extremely prolific and produce a poem a day at an average of 100 words, and you wanted to make a modest yearly salary of 20,000 dollars, then you'd have to make an average of 50 cents a word on every poem you sell. That's more than most short fiction and novel markets pay. A poet would be arguing that he deserves a full time salary off of 36,000 words a year, or rather only an hour's work a day at best.

I'm amazed that you said that, since you write poetry (and sell some of it, too), while I don't (used to write song lyrics, but ...). I rather suspect that the most respected poets work a hell of a lot longer than an hour a day to produce a relatively small number of words. I write prose fairly quickly; others may spend as long perfecting a single phrase or sentence as I do on a page (which may be why some of my prose hums off key instead of 'singing'). Poetry, being much 'denser' than prose in terms of the layers of meaning in even a single word or the juxtaposition of a pair of words, is, or could be expected to be, much more time consuming. Poets? How long does it take you to turn out a hundred words or so of noteworthy poesy? Longer than an hour a day, I would think, for anything but the very shortest bits of doggerel. Robert M.

Post by **kailhofer** » September 17, 2004, 11:43:53 AM

This doesn't prove that they're not looking for new writers, but rather that they simply rejected one of your stories.

The big editors are always on the lookout for new talent.

After this long I'd like to think I can seperate wheat from chaff. How many new authors get published by Asimov in a year? One?? Out of how many thousand submissions? I don't care which editor you bring up, Dozois (or now Sheila Williams), Stanley Schmidt, Ellen Datlow... New writers represent financial risk in a bad economy. If you don't come with a record of publishing success, I don't believe that they want to risk publishing us. Every column inch of page space costs money, and an editor has to run things that will entertain & make subscribers renew. That makes advertisers happy & then they pay the salaries. SF has a lot of name brand loyalty, so if your name won't draw... you get the form rejection. Nate

Post by **kailhofer** » September 17, 2004, 01:16:41 PM

All those editors you mentioned edit digest magazines, which make *very* little from advertisers. Realms of Fantasy has several advertisers, but it's a full-sized magazine.

I think if you check the advertising rate card from any of those mags, your eyes may pop out of their sockets.

As for them not accepting new authors? [snip]
And those are just names I know without doing any research or real brainstorming. If I were to sit here and think about it for another five minutes, I could come up with several more names, and if I were to actually do research, I could find even more than that. Just read the annual Campbell eligible authors each year, about 40 new writers a year break into the major markets that have circulations higher than 10,000 copies.

To be exact, an average of 30.6 writers qualify each year, if you add up the lists to 1997. 31 a year would be great if there were only a hundred of us trying. No one really knows how many authors are waiting in the wings, but even if it's as low as 10,000 worldwide, we all have less than a third of a 1% chance of reaching the bigs in this comparison. In contrast, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) puts the total number of people struck by lightning at 106 per year. That doesn't seem very open to newbies, and darn depressing, too. To paraphrase John Candy in the movie Planes, Trains, & Automobiles, "We'd have more luck playing pick-up sticks with our butt-cheeks than [get published this year]." :( Nate

matociquala · Post by **matociquala** » September 17, 2004, 09:16:31 PM

Yeah. Right.

Give me an editor's name & I can probably give you a copy of their rejection letter.

Nate

And so can I. I can also show you accceptance letters from Ellen Datlow, Gordon van Gelder, Jed Hartman, and various other prozine editors... and I can show you rejection letters for work submitted after the work they bought. And I can show you more or less encouraging rejection letters from various other editors, as well as form rejections. I've never sold to the same market more than once. This year was my first year of Campbell eligibility. I didn't make the ballot. I didn't expect to make the ballot, because last year, I had two pro publications--one in an anthology, and one in F&SF. I've been published in other pro markets as well. In each case, the editors were genuinely excited to have bought a story from a new writer. And yet, I've never yet had an editor buy a second story from me. I've had stories sell at their second market, and stories sell at their fifteenth, and stories trunked without a trace. If your point is that it's hard to break into print, it is hard to break into print. If your point is that merit has nothing to do with it, you're dead wrong. I submitted my first story to Asimov's while the Good Doctor was still alive. I haven't cracked the market yet. I have a submission there now; it's taken me more than fifteen years to move from the you-can't-speak-English rejection to a 'send more' rejection. Simon is right. The way to sell stories is to write good stories, and the editors, in general, are downright eager to find new writers. The problem is that the competition is fierce... and as I am frequently reminded, a writer is no judge of her own work. Right story. Right desk. Right day. Write better. This is how it works. There is no magic button for getting published. There is no secret handshake. There is only an editor willing to look at your sory and go "I would pay three hundred dollars for that." That's all. --Elizabeth Bear (certified neopro)

Post by **kailhofer** » September 17, 2004, 09:40:44 PM

Is the proof kicking in yet? Or do I have to drill another thirty names into this message board before the point sticks?

Name all the names you want. Simon Owens is the one not getting it. Yes. Someone, somewhere is being published for the first time. Duh. Nobody doubts that. We're trying to tell you that (1) a generalized statement that new people are making it misses the point and (2) the bigs are publishing a lot of bad stories. 1) You say they are open. To us, no better than .31% chance of being published does not constitute an "open" market. To imply that 99.69% of all new author stories are bad, and that's why they are rejected reflects a point of view so conceited and out of touch with reality that one would suspect you wrote literary fiction. Readers at Aphelion can vouch for what they read: a lot of good, publishable stories. Yes, some stories are poor. Some are downright embarassing. Others are good, some great, but just writing a great story doesn't guarantee you'll get in. A great story still only gets you a slim chance without a published pedigree. Odds are still stacked greatly against the unknown writer, because the system is not "open." 2) You've been published in pro markets. It's already been established that what you think is good and what I think is good are two very different things. You think literary fiction is hot stuff, and I think it's the crap next to urinal cakes. Throwing your publishing credits in our faces doesn't impress me. Things are not the way they are just because Simon Says. The rest of the world is not playing that game, no matter how many of your friends trot out to defend you. If all your looking to do is start arguments, why don't you do it at your own zine? Nate

Hedgewise · Post by **Hedgewise** » September 17, 2004, 10:28:47 PM

"I can't understand why anyone would *want* to defend these guys" Because it isn't a trial? Because the author editor relationship isn't as adversarial as it's being painted? Because the truth sometimes needs advocates? "But the big difference is that editors get to accept/reject stories and we don't. We can still disagree with what those editors accept/reject, though." The big difference is that editors pay money for those stories. Look at some of the stories you believe are good enough and ask yourself, honestly, if you'd part with hard cash for the right to publish them. When I was slush-reading for an on-line magazine, and started asking myself that question, it turned out there really weren't very many stories I thought were worth spending the monthly budget on. And that was an e-zine getting stories by authors who had been published pro. "And about those lists of new writers accepted by the big mags. Well, I could probably make a rather long list of lottery winners, but would that prove it's easy to win a lottery?" Leaving the statistical comparisons aside -- at what point did someone give you the idea that getting published was easy? Or, that it should be easy? Or for that matter, that any part of the process of learning to write and becoming a 'pro' writer was, or should be, easy? If everyone who ever sat down and decided to be an author ::drumroll and trumpets:: got published in major magazines, then what would be the cachet of being published in one? Kat Allen

Post by **kailhofer** » September 17, 2004, 11:03:00 PM

This is a discussion. Someone posted that Science Fiction is dead, I refuted it, and it eventually got into the discussion of new writers in the big mags. You're acting like I'm attacking you in some way.

So far today I've seen you disagree with Robert, myself, Donald, & Lee (who you termed to be ignorant of publishing and paranoid). These are people who I converse with every day, and who's opinions I value, so I do take offense to your attitude and arguments. I think you're arguing. To prove it, I'll ask one question: How long are you going to stay on tonight to make sure you get the last word?

You want it to be easy to get into the magazines? Then what sense of accomplishment would you get once you get in? "Oh great, I got in, so did 10,000 other new writers, what now?" And as I said before, it's not a .31 percent chance, if the story's good, then it's a close to 100% chance, if it's bad, then it's a 0% chance.

No, we don't want it to be easy. We want it to be fair, and we are contending the system is not fair.

You still haven't explained to me why a magazine would pay a slush reader a full-time salary to read slush year round. If it's not an open market, then why have open submissions when they could just establish a pro-only submission policy, like Argosy and HPL Magazine? You think Gordon Van Gelder has an extra 30,000 dollars lying around to give away to his slush reader so he can pat him on the head and say, "Good boy, now go read a bunch of stories and then reject them."

Do you think only unpublished writers get sent to the slush pile?

So basically, someone who I listed comes on here, and tells you that they're open to new writers, someone who has experienced it first hand, and you just throw her statement away completely.

Your friends would carry more weight if they did more than just defend you when you get into a difficult argument and then never post again. Perhaps if they reviewed stories & contributed something other than your defense, I would give them credit. So come on, point your high-falutin' help at the authors who were published this month. Let them give us their expert guidance so we semi-pros can get better. Or if your still ticked at me, fine. I had a novella, a short & a poem last month. Just click on the back issues button & look at the August issue. Show me how they weren't good enough for the bigs, and I'll listen. In short, do more than just argue, and we'll do more than just argue back. Nate

Hedgewise · Post by **Hedgewise** » September 18, 2004, 01:34:01 AM

"Hey wait! You guys have been trying to show us how easy it is by listing your successes and showing us long lists of others that have been published in the prozines. C'mon." Nope, they've been showing it's possible, not that it's easy. I know a whole bunch of the people on that list of new writers recently published in pro markets. And I know how hard they've worked to get there. [BTW I don't actually know Simon... I got sent here because someone thought this thread was amusing and stayed to comment because I don't like seeing people who say -- a story not making sense isn't a good reason for rejection -- going unchallenged] It's incredibly easy to sit back and say the system is unfair, editors don't give newbies a fair chance etc [and incidentally that *is* an accusation that some pro editors find offensive -- when pro editors say they're open to new writers and someone says that they are not, then that is calling the pro editor a liar and questions more than just their taste in fiction] It is a great deal harder to push on past that frustration and learn to write to a standard that is pro-publishable. It's just one of the many hurdles people encounter while pursuing pro publication. Now, many people don't want to do that -- they're happy writing for semi-pro mags, or non-pay publication. And that's a perfectly good choice to make. One can enjoy jogging without any ambition to be a marathon runner. There is also a less palatable truth, that some people will try and try and never write a great story. They may, at best, achieve good -- a doesn't-stand-out level. It's much the same as an athelete who can never quite run fast enough. That's sad, but there's no point yelling and blaming the race organisers, or the starter, or anyone else. The race is fair. But not everyone can win. And there is the luck factor. If the editor has seen five other 'set in Hell' stories that day, yours will have to be really brilliant to stand out. And maybe he takes a quick sip of coffee, burns his mouth and doesn't pay your story his full attention. No different from the effect of weather conditions on a runner. There is always an element of luck. See, the thing is, people do climb out of the slush pile and sell stories. It isn't easy, but it is far more possible for most people than winning the lottery, because if you write, and rewrite, and learn to write better, and write some more, there is an increased chance of selling the resulting stories. Then, when you've sold that first story, you write, and rewrite, and learn and write some more again... because selling the second story, or the third, or the fourth, isn't that much easier. Yes, name-recognition will get you to the top a little faster, but that editor will still reject the story if they don't like it, or think it doesn't make sense, or simply if it doesn't stand out from the rest. If it stands out from the rest a story is likely to be published, even with a few flaws -- if it's ordinary it will be rejected. I generally find that rather than reading the stories in a magazine and dismissing them as poor, it's more helpful to try and see why they stood out from the crowd. Kat Allen

Hedgewise · Post by **Hedgewise** » September 18, 2004, 02:00:53 AM

"Your friends would carry more weight if they did more than just defend you when you get into a difficult argument and then never post again. Perhaps if they reviewed stories & contributed something other than your defense, I would give them credit." For what it's worth, I don't know Simon Owens. I have no reason to defend him other than his making sense. Oddly enough I do review stories -- just not here. I have, however, reviewed stories for a number of the newly pro-published writers on Simon's listing, and for some that he didn't mention. I've actually critted many of their first pro-published stories. Which means, I think, that I have a fairly good insight to what it takes to get a story published in a pro market. "So come on, point your high-falutin' help at the authors who were published this month. Let them give us their expert guidance so we semi-pros can get better." Umm, is there some reason that you can't do it the same way they did it? And is there any reason people should call round to help if they're going to be called 'high-falutin'? There's also an edge to this which certainly doesn't sound like someone open to comment. I may have been bored today, but I'll probably be busy tomorrow. "Or if your still ticked at me, fine. I had a novella, a short & a poem last month. Just click on the back issues button & look at the August issue. Show me how they weren't good enough for the bigs, and I'll listen." I did go and look -- at the short. But I think you must realise that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it in a public forum -- after what you've termed an argument -- so it was really a rather empty challenge to make. As a general piece of advice -- new authors may have less success with stories which try to find original angles on old ideas where an original element isn't immediately apparant-- pro-editors might hang round with an established writer to see where the story goes, but a newbie will have to be really brilliant to keep them interested when they believe this is another of the same-old-same-old. Kat Allen

September 18, 2004, 03:55:24 AM

The late, great Theodore Sturgeon said that 90% (or was it 99%?) of EVERYTHING is crap. That implies that most of what gets submitted to pro zines really doesn't deserve to be published, including the stuff I send (although I HOPE that my personal crap percentage is somewhat lower than the overall average). Before the personal animosity started flying (in both directions), it was pointed out that the pro zines (especially the less-than-a-handful that meet the 10,000-plus sales criterion) get more than 10 times as many stories submitted as they publish. Hence they must reject more than 90% of submissions regardless of merit, including at least some that 'deserve' to be published. If a story happens to be number 11 or 12 in terms of 'quality' (a subjective thing anyway), it MIGHT make it eventually if the editor chooses to set it aside, or it might not. Who knows what the next month's slush may bring? One of the form rejections I have received explicitly states that rejections doesn't necessarily mean that a story is bad; it just means that it wasn't among the 'best' received (out of hundreds). Tastes vary; one slush pile reader or editor in chief may love what another thinks is derivative or poorly written or both. Even Stephen King has said that there are markets that he has never cracked, and I doubt that there are any editors who wouldn't know his name. Just to irritate BOTH sides of this war -- I think Simon blows his own horn too much, even if he isn't aware that he is doing so. Some of his stuff that has been published doesn't appeal to me, as I'm more of an old-school type in terms of the style that I enjoy (even if my 'old school' includes types that once were 'New Wave'). But I respect his many successes and the drive he has shown in breaking into so many markets, including some that pay pretty good money to those few who are accepted. Nate and some of the others who have shown personal hostility toward Simon are also (in my opinion) good writers for the most part, even if they haven't had as much success as Simon. What they don't know is that Simon submits a lot of stuff to a lot of markets, and sends a story rejected by one market to another, and another, etc.. He is both more prolific and more systematic than I am, or than most of us, as well as being talented in the judgement of more than a few editors. Instead of being jealous of his success (and I am, you betcha), maybe we all need to work harder and throw things at more markets until they stick. (Simon, I bet your pile of rejection notes is bigger than Nate's and mine and a few others combined. Maybe they'll feel better if you mention that as well as noting your sales.) So, in the immortal words of Rodney King, can't we all just get along? Being known helps in getting published, no doubt about it. Being good helps, too, but neither factor is a guarantee of success in a given market with a given story. Our personal tastes in style and content vary widely, so it is not surprising that the tastes of editors also vary (from other editors, and sadly for us, from ours). Geez, if the energy that went into this thread was translated into stories, one of us could probably get a sale out of it! Robert M.

September 18, 2004, 09:14:51 AM

on Today at 3:55am, Robert_Moriyama wrote: So, in the immortal words of Rodney King, can't we all just get along?

I can't help it. Whenever I see or hear this line, I immediately think of Jack Nicholson's character in Mars Attacks, just before he shakes hands with the martian.

Kevin

So which side is going to skewer me with the prosthetic hand with the dagger-like tail? Or will they take turns? Robert M.

matociquala · Post by **matociquala** » September 18, 2004, 10:23:15 AM

"Your friends would carry more weight if they did more than just defend you when you get into a difficult argument and then never post again. Perhaps if they reviewed stories & contributed something other than your defense, I would give them credit."

For what it's worth, I don't know Simon Owens. I have no reason to defend him other than his making sense.

Likewise. My sole knowledge of Simon is our acquaintance on a couple of online forums (such as livejournal and the Rumor Mill) and, um... I think I may have rejected him. *cough* I *do* know Kat, however, and I suspect she and I chased the same link to get here. (And, you know, it's an ugly secret, but people do google their own names, and the names of friends, to see what's being said about them.) Frankly, my motivation for commenting on this thread is that I've been a beginning writer (by a lot of people's standards, I still am) and I hate to see other writers scared off by received wisdom that is not, in essence, correct. So it's got nothing to do with defending Simon, and a lot to do with wanting to help out somebody who's exactly where I was three years ago, or five, or ten, or whatever. (I've been being rejected for a very long time. *g*) Nate, I also looked at one of your stories--the novelette--and while, like Kat, I don't feel that it's appropriate to comment in a public forum, I did in fact see some reasons why it might not be accepted by a major market. What I might suggest is, if you wish critical peer review, you might consider joining one of the two online workshops for which I have a good deal of respect ( www.critters.org and www.onlinewritingworkshops.com ) and participating in their review process. It's not always a pleasant experience--I'm an OWW member, and I've had crits there that have had me ready to take up sheep farming--but it is a learning experience. A pretty thick hide wouldn't hurt as a prerequisite for joining, though--fair warning. People are often *very* honest. And I believe both workshops have online forums for discussing writing. In any case, good luck to you. --Elizabeth Bear

Post by **kailhofer** » September 18, 2004, 11:35:08 AM

Stop being hypocritical.

Sigh. To me, this stopped being a debate the moment you called Lee paranoid. I do value his opinion, and don't like the way you escalated this "discussion". There is nothing "hypcritical" about it, and I suggest you look up the meaning of the word.

"Do you think only unpublished writers get sent to the slush pile?"

Yes. Pro writers who have sold to the magazines before get sent directly to Gordon Van Gelder. If you've previously sold a story to F&SF, it skips the first reader and goes directly to the senior editor himself. The same rule applies to Realms of Fantasy and Sci Fiction.

By your own example, an author who had published a story somewhere other than F&SF would go to the slush pile, even though the writer was published. I read an interview with Ellen Datlow (I can't find the link, sorry.) wherein she described the reading process. Authors she knows personally and ones she recognizes go past the pile. The rest are given to (Kelly, I think her first name was) Ms. Link, her reader, even if they were published before. Nate

Post by **kailhofer** » September 18, 2004, 11:47:29 AM

Umm, is there some reason that you can't do it the same way they did it? And is there any reason people should call round to help if they're going to be called 'high-falutin'? There's also an edge to this which certainly doesn't sound like someone open to comment. I may have been bored today, but I'll probably be busy tomorrow.

Aphelion is a largely semi-pro writer site. Most of us have made sales, a few for pro rates. We post in the lettercolumn to help each other write better--that's what this forum is for. I'm here every week, usually every day, offering my opinion and whatever advice I can. Sometimes I'm dead wrong--but I always try to help other writers get better. I don't pop in and then disappear.

I did go and look -- at the short. But I think you must realise that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it in a public forum -- after what you've termed an argument -- so it was really a rather empty challenge to make.

Again, these forums are for precisely that. Reviewing and helping writers improve. Go ahead and roast me. I'm a big boy, and I can take it. I also might just agree with you. Nate

Post by **kailhofer** » September 18, 2004, 11:53:12 AM

I *do* know Kat, however, and I suspect she and I chased the same link to get here. (And, you know, it's an ugly secret, but people do google their own names, and the names of friends, to see what's being said about them.)

Um... How often do you believe Google crawls this site? I looked at there, and didn't see any such reference.

Nate, I also looked at one of your stories--the novelette--and while, like Kat, I don't feel that it's appropriate to comment in a public forum, I did in fact see some reasons why it might not be accepted by a major market. What I might suggest is, if you wish critical peer review, you might consider joining one of the two online workshops for which I have a good deal of respect ( www.critters.org and www.onlinewritingworkshops.com ) and participating in their review process.

Again, these forums are exactly for that. I've roasted and been roasted. Nate

Hedgewise · Post by **Hedgewise** » September 18, 2004, 02:27:13 PM

"Aphelion is a largely semi-pro writer site. Most of us have made sales, a few for pro rates. We post in the lettercolumn to help each other write better--that's what this forum is for. I'm here every week, usually every day, offering my opinion and whatever advice I can. Sometimes I'm dead wrong--but I always try to help other writers get better. I don't pop in and then disappear." And I was pointing out that I do similar work in another place... so I'm already helping new writers to write better. I'm just not helping new writers here. Had there not been the implication that I risked patronising people (point your high-falutin' help), I might well have dropped in here now and again too. It's a pretty site, and sometimes it's nice to go somewhere different -- a change is as good as a rest and all that. New faces, new friends. I don't see, however, why I should have to pay with reviews to have an opinion on an open forum. I could simply have done what other people were -- stopping by to mock before moving on through the chain of links writer communities hand round like mindcandy. I chose to contribute, and got told to pay up or shut up. I think I can see why people would pop in and disappear. "Again, these forums are for precisely that. Reviewing and helping writers improve. Go ahead and roast me. I'm a big boy, and I can take it. I also might just agree with you." 1.This is not a reviewing thread -- it's a general discussion one (or at least I don't think this is the place reviews are posted). And I don't think I can post the comments to the reviewing thread because that would risk taking what you've labelled a confrontation over to a very inappropriate venue. Indeed, since you brought up the idea that people could review you because they were 'ticked' it is probably impossible to make any comment on your stories... which is sad because there is more than one story on the site which shares with yours what are likely to be seen by pro editors as flaws. One crit might have been useful to more than one writer. 2. I try very hard never to roast anyone -- indeed I think people who review without tact and diplomacy are often more interested in proving how smart they are rather than in helping a writer learn. Roasting, burning, ripping apart, shredding etc, are also, I've found, terms often used by writers who are fortifying themselves against listening with an open mind. As if by assuming that the critcism will be unnecessarily harsh they can persuade themselves that only the typos will be 'fair' critique. Generally it can take months of tactful reviewing to break down that kind of wall. 3. But mostly I posted that it wouldn't be appropriate *because* you have stated that I'm virtually trolling... I don't believe that having been accused of coming here only to make trouble I could really sit down and tell you why your story would be highly unlikely to be bought by a pro magazine -- print or online. It's unlikely you would believe I was making honest comment and not trying to point score in public. You assumed I was a friend of Simon, you assumed I'd been roped in by him, I think it's reasonable to believe you'd make similar negative assumptions about any critque I offered. It's also very likely that those observing might feel I was being too harsh on your story. You guys are friends and I'm an outsider. So the chances are that no one else would learn anything either. Which is frustrating -- but sometimes that's how the world turns out. Kat Allen

matociquala · Post by **matociquala** » September 18, 2004, 02:58:45 PM

And well said, Elizabeth. Any relation to Greg?

Donald

Nope! Never even met him, although I admire his work. --EBear

matociquala · Post by **matociquala** » September 18, 2004, 03:01:40 PM

Um... How often do you believe Google crawls this site? I looked at there, and didn't see any such reference.

Nate

Please reread my post. I said I followed a link to get here--and I don't know where the person who posted the link got it. The google comment was meant as a friendly reminder. It's not surprising when people being discussed in an online forum show up there, and shouldn't be. -EBear

Aphelion

"Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

"Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (ar

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: Crates and Temperatures ....

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Sturgeon's Law

Re: Sturgeon's Law

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)