I'd be very interested in your views on the issue of what kind of markets are best to submit short fiction to. We've touched on this before, I know, but I thought it was worth raising as a specific discussion.

For background, I'm on a US SF/Fantasy writers' forum and someone put up a long post there yesterday, detailing all the sales of short stories he's had recently, along with his successes with two novels. However, the latter was three agents requesting to see fulls, and with the former all but one of his sales were to magazines that pay next to nothing. This guy was on my Odyssey course, which meant I had to critique six of his stories, only to hear him in the sessions in effect saying that we hadn't understood what he was doing and dismissing all our comments. He said in his post (somewhat pointedly) that he's now sold all six of those stories. Except that 'sold' here means to markets that accept a high proportion of submissions and pay just a few dollars.

Now, it's quite possible of course to make a career in SF/Fantasy by writing crap, but writing and submitting a lot of it. There is one big name in particular who's done it this way.

But what would you advise a new writer to do?

One argument is that you can build up by selling/giving away stories to lesser markets, then progress to the best ones. However, I think the danger with that approach is you aren't pushing your quality levels right at the start where it counts the most, and can therefore develop bad habits by being 'successful' with them. Also, no editor I know is impressed with a cover letter that talks about dozens of sales to (lesser) markets. They'd be much more impressed with just one sale to, say, Analog.

The other argument is that it's best always to aim high, even if it will take much longer to succeed. Because that way, you're setting your levels against the best in the business (not withstanding the commercial exigencies that some editors feel obliged to follow at times), so you can only improve.

Within this, of course, it needs bearing in mind that the odds are high where acceptance by pro markets is concerned. The top SF/Fantasy magazines receive around 3-400 submissions for every one they accept (and I think Clarkesworld is closer to 700). There is also the consideration that there are one or two magazines which are highly respected despite paying little, and are also very difficult to get into.

Terry

it's best always to aim high, even if it will take much longer to succeed

This is my view.

There is no point at all in giving work away, or "selling" it for token payments, unless the publication is a respected one. There are so many people who have a delusional belief that they are successful writers because they give shoddy work away to free e-zines and low-grade small press magazines.

One thing that annoys me a lot is when people talk about a market being "paying" when the "payment" is something silly like £5. I always feel like shouting, "No, that is not payment. That is what's known as a token ... "

There is a middle way, though: aiming at the respectable middle, as well as at the top. That's a worthwhile thing to do while one is improving and growing. I'm thinking mainly of competitions here: there are pointless competitions that really aren't worth winning, but there are decent middling ones that are worth going for.

I agree. I guess the first thing is to write a story that you know is of professional quality. That doesn't mean you'll necessarily sell it to a pro market: lots of factors can get in the way. But you know it's of that level. Then, you can try respected 'middle' markets. I think it's important, however, to set a line below which you won't go. Okay, that can mean you don't sell the story, but you can always self-publish it with confidence that it's of high quality, therefore worth someone paying for.

I also agree about competitions. There are a suspicious amount of them which charge entry fees which with a bit of thought can be seen to easily cover the prize money and then some. But there are also respected comps. I can't speak for other genres too well but certainly in SF/Fantasy/Horror, everyone knows, really, which are the good markets/comps and which aren't really.

Something that perhaps isn't always appreciated is that editors (again I'm talking SF/F/H but would be surprised if it isn't the same everywhere) discuss writers who submit to them. So, while you might not have made a sale, if you're submitting high quality work, it will be noticed, with editors waiting and hoping that you'll soon hit the mark bang on. By contrast, if they know you make a lot of low-to-no paying sales, they'll be inclined to think you're not aiming high enough, quality wise.

Terry

One thing that annoys me a lot is when people talk about a market being "paying" when the "payment" is something silly like £5.

It's only really covering (some of) the writer's costs, isn't it? Calling that 'paying' is like saying you've done paid work when all the 'employer' has paid you for is the travel costs.

I'd agree with aiming high, rather than low. It's always possible to move downmarket later, if that's appropriate. Moving upmarket from an initial low position is going to be difficult, because by then your name will be associated with undemanding markets.

This is a tricky one. I started out by giving shoddy work to non-paying markets. But as I got better, I started to value my work more. It wasn't seamless, I certainly made mistakes and it does mean that there's work out there, in the real world, that I'm not hugely proud of now I feel I've improved a little.

But it's a start, and a decent start. I don't think diminishing it helps the confidence of new writers, or helps them to move on to better, more respected markets. And sometimes, believe it or not, the most respectable publications of all don't really pay much more than a token, or costs.

This is an interesting debate. Tough one. I think, overall, I'm inclined to say sub as you go/grow, because it can build your confidence, help you gauge your work and get you into good habits of writing regularly, imnposing your own deadlines and keeping records.

The big proviso here is that you do continue to grow, not get complacently satisfied with mediocre publications which you treat as success.

I have some sympathy with medicore trumpet blowing. I don't think it's as conceited or complacent as it can come across. It's often a way for a fledgling writer to bolster themselves up and build a bit fo self belief after knock backs. Been guilty of that myself.

But I do think there isn't one way. Not in terms of what when and why you publish. The only constnat is that we continue to produce and develop work and increase our ability to improve it.

I have a private belief that the maths works out the same whether you squander words on the road to ability or hoard them. Cezanne produced piles of trash among which were some paintings of sheer brilliance. vermeer produced no trash at all and only painted aorund 30 canvases in his life time. But they were great. My hunch is that we all have a given body and quantity of good work insid eus. Either it comes out surrounded by a pike of our near miss attempts (which can win us some readers, enough to buy some rounds in the pub etc on route) or it is squeezed out of a highly restrained and judgmental editorial brain. Swing too far each way and you either get just bilge with no critical application or such refined critical faculties that you don't dare write a line.

So, aiming high or low are both workable ways towards a common goal.

Yes, what Cherys said.

But it's a start, and a decent start. I don't think diminishing it helps the confidence of new writers, or helps them to move on to better, more respected markets.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

I think there are two separate issues under discussion here:

1. The guy Terry met who sounds like a tosser who is using the false-confidence of publication in the freebies to cover up for a total inability to take criticism etc...

2. Whether or not there is any value in the freebie markets...

For the former; yes, from my unbiased and impartial position of having only heard one side from a guy I am inclined to respect the opinion of, I can wholeheartedly agree that the other guy is more than a little self-limiting in his outlook.

For the latter; some experience is better than no experience.

Like Ladyblackbird, I've sent out to some of the token payers in the past. I've learned a huge amount by doing so, and it was fun to boot. One place in particular has provided some insightful editorial that was worth a multiple of the token payment they supplied.

Like Ladyblackbird, I see this as a stepping stone - it means my CV is no longer empty and it means that I now have a bit more confidence as well as experience. Responding to some of the editorial comments was almost more fun than writing the original piece in the first place.

To counter the above; I also agree with Terry that writers need to push themselves a bit in order to get anywhere. There are definitely places that I see as not worth sending to (mainly because of my perception of low quality, including "too easy" acceptance [wouldn't belong to any club that would have me, etc.], but also other considerations such as the value [to me] of seeing reader comments etc).

So I'm kinda on the fence here; I believe writers should push themselves, value their work and get paid but I also believe that it is a mistake to keep all your writing locked up in a drawer somewhere out of some high-minded notion of quality...

G

Some really good points being made, e.g.

But I do think there isn't one way. Not in terms of what when and why you publish. The only constnat is that we continue to produce and develop work and increase our ability to improve it.

and:

So I'm kinda on the fence here; I believe writers should push themselves, value their work and get paid but I also believe that it is a mistake to keep all your writing locked up in a drawer somewhere out of some high-minded notion of quality...

Cherys, I agree with most of what you say, but not so sure about this:

My hunch is that we all have a given body and quantity of good work insid eus. Either it comes out surrounded by a pike of our near miss attempts (which can win us some readers, enough to buy some rounds in the pub etc on route) or it is squeezed out of a highly restrained and judgmental editorial brain.

I don't think there exists already, and only so much, good work inside us. My experience has been that the more I do, and develop and learn, the more good work turns up, and better work, too.

One danger, I think, of settling to easy market wins is that you don't then learn the craft. Gaius, good for you in finding an editor who was prepared to give you some pointers. But, judging by the quality of work that often appears in the easier markets, it's clear the writers don't always know what they're doing. Which isn't to say the editor at Asimov's will give you instructional feed-back. She probably won't. But - and this is an arse-about-face argument on the surface, I know - I think if a writer works as hard as they can to get their stories to the level they think is required for the top markets (and submits them - a step many seem to fall at!), then the failure to succeed at first is more likely to spur them to find out why. Which means, e.g. reading the magazine's stories more closely, to see what the authors are doing; and taking fully on board any comments the editors may make about why the story didn't work for them.

Maybe because we all read a lot of fiction, and do absorb to an extent a subconscious understanding of, say, beginning-middle-end, we tend to believe we know all there is to know about the writing craft. This wouldn't happen in music, for instance; where it would be painfully apparent when you didn't know how to play your instrument. So, I think an important attitude for any writer to develop is that they don't know anything, and must find ways to learn.

I did this rather late in life. I got my first novel accepted without having a clue what I was doing, other than having a basic, instinctive grasp on story-shape. Fortunately, it was accepted at a time when editors would work in depth with new writers. My editor taught me proper structure with that first book. With the second, she taught me how to produce tighter prose and self-edit. But I still fell into the familiar and easy trap of assuming I then knew everything there was to know. Luckily I have a partner and best friend who are both professional coaches, and they eventually broke through my objections to release the hungry-to-learn me, the one that was such a keen Boy Scout way back. Now, I go to conventions and workshops and always learn something - going on one next week, in fact, in France.

So, while I agree there is no one way to improve and grow, I think that aiming high is more likely to force a new writer to seek ways to learn (or give up), while aiming low and succeeding may reinforce the false view that you're already there.

Gaius, that guy at Odyssey totally wasted our time, because he wasn't there to learn; he was there to get validation and put 'Odyssey Workshop' on his CV. His work is crap and probably always will be. By contrast, a guy called Dave on the same workshop was (like me) in his 50s, had a lot of sports journalism to his credit but no fiction which he wanted to learn. It was very difficult for him to do a full time 6-week course - family, job, etc. What marked him out was his total desire to learn. He's since gone on to have several stories published and last year had his first YA novel published (which is excellent, by the way).

Terry