Re: CHAT: Conlang and Writers

No, Laurie, your advice is sound, too... Nancy Kress, a friend of mine
and a celebrated science fiction writer, has been giving me advice
for years, and she's firmly AGAINST simultaneous submission, because
the market *is* incestuous.  And no, I spoke too soon... it's NOT the only
thing going  for you.  You have talent and persistence.  These two things,
especially the latter, are your greatest strengths as a writer.  Be judicious
whom you simultaneously submit to, and you won't get too wrecked.
Some magazines, agents, and publishers even specify that they will
tolerate simultaneous submission.  But it is very VERY frustrating
when all the cards are stacked on the publishers' side and almost
none on the writer's side.  There is a part of me that wants to see
the publishers competing with each other for a good manuscript,
rather than writers competing with each other for a good publisher.
Simultaneous submission can sometimes work in these situations,
but only if you have a fabulous product that is bound to make you
rich and famous.

Finally, advice I find the hardest to take:  don't get cynical.

Good night,
Sally

Laurie Gerholz wrote:

> I just have to throw in some thoughts to confuse the issue. Please keep
> in mind that this advice comes from a published author of my
> acquaintance, but we had this discussion many years ago. Perhaps the
> market and the rules have changed.
>
> Sally Caves wrote:
> >
> > Mathew Willoughby wrote:
> >
> > > this particular publisher didn't want sample chapters, they wanted the
> > > entire book and an agreement that I not engage in the heretical
> > > practice of "simultaneous submission."  Normally publishers look at sample
> > > chapters as an initial screening process but this one was different.  So,
> > > like a good little soldier, I wrote short stories while I waited eight months
> > > to finally get my rejection  letter.  Boy was I happy!  I said,  "Woo hoo!
> > > Now I can finally send this MS off to someone else!"
> >
> > Here is my sound advice, given me by a respected agent.  Ignore the prohibitions
> > against "simultaneous submission."  That's the only thing you've got as a writer.
>
> I don't necessarily believe that's the only thing you've got. See below.
>
> > The market is cruelly tilted in favor of the publisher, and they make these
> > rules.  Obviously, writers are simultaneously submitting all over the place out of
> > desperate need... otherwise this press wouldn't have asked you not to.
>
> I won't argue the "cruelty" of the market. It sounds brutal from
> everything I've heard. But my author also told me that publishers don't
> want to mess with the situation when a given manuscript has been
> *accepted* at multiple places. It may be true that "everyone does it"
> when it comes to simultaneous submissions. But it you're caught -- well,
> publishers talk to each other. The field actually sounds pretty
> incestuous. A known simultaneous submitter may be seen as less
> trustworthy by the publishers.
>
> > Eight
> > months?  I'm waiting on Tor for over a year.  Some people can wait as much as two
> > years for a press to get back to them.  This is often the case with short
> > stories.  So we
> > are supposed to send one short story out every two years?
>
> This is insane, and my author says don't put up with it. If a publisher
> doesn't get back to you within a reasonable time frame (six months? a
> year? can't remember what he said), write to them and tell them you are
> withdrawing the submission. Then it is yours again to freely submit
> elsewhere, and protects you legally.
>
> > Read my lips and submit
> > simultaneously.  That way you have a bargaining chip if you're good.  If any press
> > makes that demand again, on condition that they'll read the manuscript, say that
> > you'll comply with it only if they agree to read it within one month.   They can
> > only say no, and you send it somewhere else.
>
> My author's strategy is to have multiple pieces in the works, and
> multiple pieces in the pipe. Don't wait for a submission to come back
> before doing the next piece. Start the next one right away, and send
> that off somewhere else. And then the next one. Then when the first one
> comes back, if it's rejected, send *it* somewhere else.
>
> >
> > Another tip:  don't let anybody talk you into paying them for editorial advice up
> > front.
> >
>
> Agreed. This also correlates with what my author said.
>
> Now, you probably want to listen to Sally's current (and professional)
> advice rather than my old (and second-hand) advice. But keep us up to
> date on what happens.
>
> And have you looked into publishing-on-demand? Yes, we're talking
> potentially small print runs here. But because the publisher isn't
> taking nearly as much of a chance on any given piece, they might be more
> open to working with new people rather than just established writers.
>
> Laurie
> milo@winternet.com
> http://www.winternet.com/~milo