Let's talk about short fiction and its neverending death

[pabba]

This year, already mid-way through 2009, has been terrible for the short fiction market. My boss and editor of Clarkesworld, Neil Clarke, has some summaries and numbers about what's been going on over the past year...seriously, read it. Then come back here. Wait, also go read Sandra McDonald's take on things, too. Back? Okay, good.

Just this week

Comments

[j_cheney]

It's interesting to see the different perspectives on it. ericmarin has an interesting post about it, too. I think I've pretty much said what I'll say.

I do like the card by the way. Scanners just can't reproduce the sheer glory of colored pencils....

[pabba]

Yeah, I missed seeing his post. Thanks!

[micheleis]

I just blogged about this yesterday too. It is tough out there, but at the core we don't write stories to sell them, we write them to tell them. Of course it is a nice time to reassess what is and isn't working for us and focus on the most promising choices.

[pabba]

I'm gonna keep writing, but the push for getting it out there right away, in terms of submitting, is fading.

[micheleis]

It is. I suppose that this is the point where a lot of writers who aren't in it for the writing, or aren't stubborn enough to keep going give up.

[sandramcdonald]

We can't tell them without viable venues, alas.

[pabba]

Of course, sorry if I implied otherwise.

Now that I think about it, Beneath Ceaseless Skies is a new ezine that I read now and then, which I think is doing good things for the field. But that's only one, and a niche market at that.

Repeating my comment @Eric's LJ

[squirrel_monkey]

My sense is that there are more markets now than before -- there's CW, Fantasy, GUD, Apex (OK, on hiatus, but it lives), BCS and a few others that did not exist when I first started submitting. Back then Scifiction was alive, but still; there's some turnover, but still a fair number of markets. And overall more SFWA qualifying ones, I think. Also, even closed markets sometimes respond to queries, so those doors are not completely closed.

[sandramcdonald]

Of the 19 qualifying markets listed on the SFWA web site, 7 are closed either permanently or temporarily.

Of those that are left:

- one is Writers of the Future anthology, which is not open to pro writers
- one is flash fiction
- one is a very specific shared universe
- one is IGMS, which I personally won't submit to
- one is for children

That doesn't leave much out there. There are other markets, yes, some for pay, many for not. Overall, not a good picture.

[nihilistic_kid]

From a writer's POV, a venue that doesn't allow for open submissions does allow for queries.

Don't confuse the bizarre tacks new venues have had over the past few years have taken -- ever more baroque guidelines, "slush survivors", public review of tracking and logging of submissions, and all sorts of other supposedly "writer friendly" (but really writer infantiziling and reader ignoring) policies -- with how writers are supposed to see things.

Queries

[nihilistic_kid]

Re: queries

This is not necessarily so.

Bill
Subterranean Press

Re: Queries

[nihilistic_kid]

From a writer's POV it is, even if one out of 482456834765165 venues doesn't actually look at queries, since

a. a writer doesn't send out queries on a one-at-a-time or exclusive basis

and

b. doesn't sit around waiting for queries to be rejected, since most of the 482456834765165 venues that do look at queries will only to respond to those they are positive about.

That is to say, from a writer's POV, there is no functional difference between a venue that looks at queries and one that doesn't. (It'll just be one more null response from the one cranky periodical.)

[douglascohen]

It's true that we didn't give away all 200 free copies, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't mean too much when compared to the amount of people who have subscribed or re-subscribed since Warren bought RoF. Warren shared some $$$ amounts with me that have been generated, and while I'm not about to air his business figures on the blogosphere, it's safe to say these amounts are considerable.

The giveaway was a very last minute thing and didn't reach nearly as many people as news about the mag's revival. But people are ponying up $$$ for the magazine, and that's much more important for the magazine's health, imo. And while it can't be proven now, I'd imagine if we had run this through the website (I'm told it won't be long before it moves beyond its current placeholder format), I do believe we could have moved all 200 copies without a problem.

[pabba]

I'm glad to hear that, Doug! I used to have a sub to ROF and am looking forward to checking out the newest issue when it hits bookstores. But yeah, the website and forum would've probably pushed you well over the 200 mark. Thanks for sharing.

[douglascohen]

Happy to! And I hope you stick with us for at least a few issues beyond the first. To say that changing publishers creates a lot of challenges for the magazine is putting it lightly. While I believe most people will enjoy our first issue back, I also believe that as we get some wind our sails you'll see some marked improvements over the course of the first few issues.