Paying v. non-paying markets?

Good stuff guys. One of the best threads I've read on these boards.

Robert E. Keller said:

But to add to my other posts, I'm talking about paying markets here. ANY paying markets. It's important to understand that the only difference between the writer who sells repeatedly to professional markets, or the writer who wins literary awards, or the writer who sells repeatedly to token-paying markets (these days) is style and genre--not skill level. For example, there are some excellent horror writers out there with very few professional markets to work with, and so they may have few professional credits, if any. Same goes for writers of high fantasy, sword and sorcery, or space opera.

I realize that appears to contradict my statement that pay rate determines skill level. But it in fact does not. To clarify: A higher pay rate often attracts better writers, but some writers don't have much of a professional market for their style or genre of fiction. These writers submit to token-paying markets (making the competition among those markets that much more difficult). See, no contradiction. Cool beans, huh?

Click to expand...

Very cool beans, until I recall I write sword-and-sorcery. Although I dabble with other genres, as well. To date I've only 'sold' one story to a non-paying market, but there are a lot of stories I haven't sold yet that might go to a non-paying market eventually. I don't like the thought, really--writing a short story can take a lot out of me, and I'd like a few bucks to show for it, even if it isn't much. If I wanted to post fiction without being paid, I'd use my Fictionpress account.

That said, there are some very lovely nonpaying 'zines out there. If other authors want to appear in them, more power (and publication credits) to them. It's just not the way I work.

MumblingSage said:

Very cool beans, until I recall I write sword-and-sorcery. Although I dabble with other genres, as well. To date I've only 'sold' one story to a non-paying market, but there are a lot of stories I haven't sold yet that might go to a non-paying market eventually. I don't like the thought, really--writing a short story can take a lot out of me, and I'd like a few bucks to show for it, even if it isn't much. If I wanted to post fiction without being paid, I'd use my Fictionpress account.

That said, there are some very lovely nonpaying 'zines out there. If other authors want to appear in them, more power (and publication credits) to them. It's just not the way I work.

Click to expand...

But wait! Don't send those sword and sorcery stories off to non-paying markets just yet. If you've tried the paying ones, check the anthology list on Ralan.com. New paying anthologies are popping up all the time seeking heroic fantasy and sword and sorcery. Just read the guidelines closely, because a lot of new anthologies are only offering exposure.

I've come to learn that it's better to wait and see what new paying markets arise, because reprints can sometimes be a tough sell and we writers like to be paid for our efforts eventually. And the more we get paid, the better, obviously. Hang in there and watch the markets. Sooner or later one will come along that's perfect for a story you're holding onto.

neotank said:

Good stuff guys. One of the best threads I've read on these boards.

Click to expand...

I agree. Mr. Ritchie is obviously a writer who knows a lot about the industry and how to be successful (he knows a lot more than I do, certainly) and it's been a learning experience for me as well to discuss these topics with him in a public forum where others might benefit from this free exchange of ideas.

I am new and therefore quite late to the discussion, but yeah, why give it away? Good comments!

I'm not doing this to get rich (ha!) but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to expect some sort of compensation for the time I've put into a story. I typically only submit to semi-pro and up mags, though if a token magazine catches my fancy, I might shoot of a story once in a while. But I'd rather just stick a story up on my website than give it away for free.

I've been retiring stories if they don't sell after 10 attempts. Next year I plan to move that number down to seven, while being very percise with the markets I target. I figure my time would be better spent working on new and better stories than trying to figure out why they're not selling and editing them to pieces. (This is just a number I picked on my personal experience selling stories.)

Nicole

Wow. This is all very new to me. I've been submitting to the so-called "literary" journals, very few of which pay. If you search on Duotrope for "literary" and "non-paying markets," you'll find prestigious names like the Alaska Quarterly Review, Conjunctions and McSweeney's Internet Tendency — in short, magazines I would kill to be in. Most of them are funded by a college or university and have a tiny subscription base; hence the lack of pay. But they are very important as pro credits for anyone who wants to teach fiction writing, publish a novel, etc. (Most are print journals, but not all.)

Ironically, my one acceptance was paid ($100). But it was from a relatively obscure journal that (per Duotrope) accepts a full 11 percent of submissions. The ones I named above accept less than 1 percent.

I'm not trying to make a living from fiction, since I already make a living churning out nonfiction to fit the demands of a market. My priority is to get my words in print (or online in a well-read pub). But since I sometimes do submit to genre markets (like Strange Horizons), this discussion is really helpful to me.

Now, if only someone could tell me how to find a midlevel literary market I could actually get accepted by, paying or not ... sigh.

i havent had anything accepted anywhere yet. two stories were rejected this week, within a few hours of each other. the first one really hurt, the second hardly registered.

i really want to get my stuff out to readers but i am still only sending to paying markets, although the payrates are getting very very low.

Fuchsia Groan said:

Wow. This is all very new to me. I've been submitting to the so-called "literary" journals, very few of which pay. If you search on Duotrope for "literary" and "non-paying markets," you'll find prestigious names like the Alaska Quarterly Review, Conjunctions and McSweeney's Internet Tendency — in short, magazines I would kill to be in. Most of them are funded by a college or university and have a tiny subscription base; hence the lack of pay. But they are very important as pro credits for anyone who wants to teach fiction writing, publish a novel, etc. (Most are print journals, but not all.)

Ironically, my one acceptance was paid ($100). But it was from a relatively obscure journal that (per Duotrope) accepts a full 11 percent of submissions. The ones I named above accept less than 1 percent.

I'm not trying to make a living from fiction, since I already make a living churning out nonfiction to fit the demands of a market. My priority is to get my words in print (or online in a well-read pub). But since I sometimes do submit to genre markets (like Strange Horizons), this discussion is really helpful to me.

Now, if only someone could tell me how to find a midlevel literary market I could actually get accepted by, paying or not ... sigh.

Click to expand...

If there's an exception to the paying market rule, it's college literary magazines, but an awful lot of these pay, too. Not much, usually, but the better ones do pay something, and some pay reasonably well.

If you search Duotrope with "Literary" and "Token and up", you get 267 hits. That's a lot of markets.

Even if you search "semi-pro and up", you still get 171 hits.

This is with "print magazines" also selected.

Not all the hits are college literary magazines, of course, but as far as I can tell, every major college literary magazine pays something. A few of them even pay enough to make a nice chunk of change.

And the thing is, acceptance rates of teh non-paying and paying college magazines are pretty cloes to equal, so it's just about as "easy", to get into the paying college magazines as it is the non-paying ones.

So even with college literary magazines, I think it's best to start with the ones that pay, and then work your way down to the ones that do not.

jerry phoenix said:

i havent had anything accepted anywhere yet. two stories were rejected this week, within a few hours of each other. the first one really hurt, the second hardly registered.

i really want to get my stuff out to readers but i am still only sending to paying markets, although the payrates are getting very very low.

Click to expand...

Are you getting your stories critiqued, Jerry? If not, you should definitely consider it. There's a place on these forums for that, and Critters.org is a great place to get a lot of critiques. It can definitely help you make that first sale and teach you a lot about the writing process.

jerry phoenix said:

i havent had anything accepted anywhere yet. two stories were rejected this week, within a few hours of each other. the first one really hurt, the second hardly registered.

i really want to get my stuff out to readers but i am still only sending to paying markets, although the payrates are getting very very low.

Click to expand...

Well, sometimes it takes a while. The first hurdle is learning how to write in the way editors want. The biggest hurdle, and one many writers never clear, is learning to write what editors want.

I think it helps to remember that even some great writers took a while to clear both hurdles. William Saroyan pulled in roughly 4,000 rejections before he wrote and sold The Daring Young Man on the Flying Trapeze.

Erskine Caldwell didn't fare much better, and had a huge suitcase stuffed with rejection slips before making his first sale. He said tehy made a great bonfire. once he did make a sale.

Both of them did fine, once they got the hang of it.

Unlike Robert, I think, outside of format and grammar, critique groups are a horrible idea for most writers. I have seen writers, a tiny few, helped by a grup, but even most of those wouold have, I believe, succeeded faster without the group. And for every writer I've seen helped, I've seen nine harmed, sometimes irreparably.

If critique groups really helped as much as many believe, it seems to me a higher percentage of writer in such groups should go on to become selling writers, but it very rarely happens.

If you look at the sheer number of stories most successful short story writers wrote in the beginning, it becomes obvious that there wasn't enough time to send a fraction of these stories through groups. A prolific writer can often write ten stories in the time it takes for one story to go through the "critique" process.

In fact, William Saroyan broke in by determining to write a story a day for thirty days. Somewhere around day twenty, Trapeze came out of his typewriter. Had he been sending those stories thorugh a group, Trapeze wouldn't have been written for years, if ever.

If you must be critiqued, find one or two or three readers who actually know what it takes to make a story of the kind you write publishable, which means those who can either do it themselves, or those who have some experience buying stories. Even a bestselling SF writer probably can't tell you squat about what it takes to make a literary short story publishable.

Just about all the writers in the average critique group are going to know less than you do, and can't write anything resembling a publishable story, but they'll be happy to tell you what's wrong with yours, and exactly how to fix it.

Writers aside, I've also seen nine good stories completely ruined for each I've seen helped, again aside from grammar and format.

It's easy to say you have to be careful who to listen to, but a writer who knows who to listen to is usually a heck of a lot more selective in who he lets read his stories in the first place, and will probably get plenty of good help from the editors he submits stories to. If not, he'll search high and low for a couple of readers who can actually do what it is he wants to learn.

... there are some very cool pubs that do not pay. They have particular slants that lie outside the mainstream market. If you write with a similar slant you might contribute to them, despite the lack of pay. Making money is important, but it is not all there is to writing. There's a lot to be said for collaborating on a pub with people who share similar views and aims.

Jamesaritchie said:

Well, sometimes it takes a while. The first hurdle is learning how to write in the way editors want. The biggest hurdle, and one many writers never clear, is learning to write what editors want.

I think it helps to remember that even some great writers took a while to clear both hurdles. William Saroyan pulled in roughly 4,000 rejections before he wrote and sold The Daring Young Man on the Flying Trapeze.

Erskine Caldwell didn't fare much better, and had a huge suitcase stuffed with rejection slips before making his first sale. He said tehy made a great bonfire. once he did make a sale.

Both of them did fine, once they got the hang of it.

Unlike Robert, I think, outside of format and grammar, critique groups are a horrible idea for most writers. I have seen writers, a tiny few, helped by a grup, but even most of those wouold have, I believe, succeeded faster without the group. And for every writer I've seen helped, I've seen nine harmed, sometimes irreparably.

If critique groups really helped as much as many believe, it seems to me a higher percentage of writer in such groups should go on to become selling writers, but it very rarely happens.

If you look at the sheer number of stories most successful short story writers wrote in the beginning, it becomes obvious that there wasn't enough time to send a fraction of these stories through groups. A prolific writer can often write ten stories in the time it takes for one story to go through the "critique" process.

In fact, William Saroyan broke in by determining to write a story a day for thirty days. Somewhere around day twenty, Trapeze came out of his typewriter. Had he been sending those stories thorugh a group, Trapeze wouldn't have been written for years, if ever.

If you must be critiqued, find one or two or three readers who actually know what it takes to make a story of the kind you write publishable, which means those who can either do it themselves, or those who have some experience buying stories. Even a bestselling SF writer probably can't tell you squat about what it takes to make a literary short story publishable.

Just about all the writers in the average critique group are going to know less than you do, and can't write anything resembling a publishable story, but they'll be happy to tell you what's wrong with yours, and exactly how to fix it.

Writers aside, I've also seen nine good stories completely ruined for each I've seen helped, again aside from grammar and format.

It's easy to say you have to be careful who to listen to, but a writer who knows who to listen to is usually a heck of a lot more selective in who he lets read his stories in the first place, and will probably get plenty of good help from the editors he submits stories to. If not, he'll search high and low for a couple of readers who can actually do what it is he wants to learn.

Click to expand...

Format and grammar are, I believe, important to a first sale.

I suggest getting a few stories critiqued on the side, but certainly a writer shouldn't send every story through a critique group or you'd be waiting for years to get much of anything sold.

There are a few common elements that can be learned through the critiquing process that I feel can benefit beginning writers: Showing rather than telling (a big one that gets constantly harped on), good grammar (of course), avoiding passive writing, avoiding over use of exposition, and avoiding weak character development (on occasion). Yes, there is always crappy advice to be found mixed in with the good advice, but I think most writers will get clued in to the common elements that better writers employ, and it can give a floundering writer a needed boost.

You said you believe many writers have been harmed by critique groups. I won't dispute that, since I have no hard data either way, but I will ask this out of curiosity: In what ways do you feel they were harmed? Irreparable damage suggests these writers learned faulty techniques. Have you noticed one or more common misconceptions perpetuated within critique groups concerning techniques, or is the damage more random and general? I have not seen any common misconceptions myself that would lead to a writer learning permanent faulty techniques.

there are few places i would go for a crit. this place is one, and a very useful one. my wife is very good at pointing out technical errors (she is not 1st lang eng and having studies language can spot a gramatical error at 50 paces at midnioght through a pea-souper)
i trust one of my friends to give me a good crit. weve know each other a very long time and he knows he can give it to me straight (oo err missus) and he is very well read.
i have had some crits where i accepted what i thought were good points and ignored others i didnt.

ultimately its up to me to say when something is done. it might not be good but one must finish stuff or nothing will get done. perhaps some new writers get so stuck on trying to please everyone that every new crit generates a new draft and then another crit and so on ad infinitum/nausum

just noticed this is waaaaay of topic

Robert E. Keller said:

Format and grammar are, I believe, important to a first sale.

I suggest getting a few stories critiqued on the side, but certainly a writer shouldn't send every story through a critique group or you'd be waiting for years to get much of anything sold.

There are a few common elements that can be learned through the critiquing process that I feel can benefit beginning writers: Showing rather than telling (a big one that gets constantly harped on), good grammar (of course), avoiding passive writing, avoiding over use of exposition, and avoiding weak character development (on occasion). Yes, there is always crappy advice to be found mixed in with the good advice, but I think most writers will get clued in to the common elements that better writers employ, and it can give a floundering writer a needed boost.

You said you believe many writers have been harmed by critique groups. I won't dispute that, since I have no hard data either way, but I will ask this out of curiosity: In what ways do you feel they were harmed? Irreparable damage suggests these writers learned faulty techniques. Have you noticed one or more common misconceptions perpetuated within critique groups concerning techniques, or is the damage more random and general? I have not seen any common misconceptions myself that would lead to a writer learning permanent faulty techniques.

Click to expand...

I have seen many, many writers harmed by critique groups, and the harm ranges from mild to irreparable. The mild harm is when a writer gets in, realizes his mistake after a few months, and gets out. More severe harm occurs when a good writer gets into a critique group, has his good writing, or rather good storytelling, turned into slop by listening to bad advice, gets lost in the maze of advice, doesn't know how the heck he's supposed to write anymore, and spends years trying to regain what he had before he ever allowed a story to get critiqued.

The irreparable harm is done, and I've seen it happen many times, when a darned good writer gets so lost and discouraged by tons of conflicting advice that he stops writing altogether. This is not an uncommon occurence. It's been my experience that good writers usually quit faster and more often than bad writers.

Part of the problems is that no more than ten percent or so of those in critique groups have a clue about what it takes to make a story publishable. Pubishable is seldom about good or bad, showing or telling, passive sentences in media res, or any one of a dozen other "rules" that critique groups use to turn a good story into slop. Sometimes, in some stories, tell works better than show, passive says exactly what should be said, and in media res is a horrible way to begin.

Which gives rise to one of the seemingly sensible but biggest myths out there. . .if enough readers tell you something is wrong, change it. This is horrible advice, almost guaranteed to screw up any writer. If nine writers in a group tell you something is wrong, and one tells you it's right, you'll usually be better off listening to the one because that's about the percentage of writers in any group who really knows what he's talking about.

The lousy part of it all is that the writers being harmed the most are almost always the ones who will, for months on end, swear they're being helped the most. They keep saying this right up to the day when discouragement overpowers blind faith, and they either stop writing, or, if very lucky, go away and stop listening to bad advice.

I think the biggest problem on the group side may be that outside of editors and most pro writers in your genre, almost no one reads a manuscript with the same eye and attitude they use to read an already published story. Thwe job of a critique group is to find out what's wrong and tell the writer how to fix it, and they will, by God, find out what's wrong, even if nothing is, and tell you how to fix it, even if the "fix" breaks everything meaningful about the story.

If you want to try an interesting experiment, find a large critique group, preferably an in person group simply because I don't like posting anyone else's writing online, and give them a story tp critique. But not just any story. Copy one by a famous writer, put the name of an unpublished writer on it, (Make the writer up, if you like), and ask the group to give it an honest critique, including their opinion of whether or not it's publishable.
I've done this many times, including with groups that had well-pubished writers as members, and the story always gets shredded. On only a couple of occasions has any member of any group said that the story might be publishable as is.

I haven't done this to be mean, but in an attempt to get groups to understand that they do read a manuscript in a different way, and usually tear stories apart needlessly, and in ways that simply do not matter.

The biggest problem on the writer side may be that, because so many groups are out there, and so many new writers encourage involvment in them, the writer tries to substitute a group for things that would help, such as writing classes and workshops taught by top editors and pro writer who specialize in your genre. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for, and a writer is a hundred times better off spending some money to find people who really know what they're doing.

I also think a writer is better off with no help at all, other than reading much, writing often, and submitting everything, than he is with the wrong help. He'll improve faster, sell quicker, and be much happier than he will be after the typical group experience.

All this presupposes that the writer has some talent in the first place, of course, but then again, most members of most critique groups will never sell anything, anywhere, for any amount of money.

Jamesaritchie said:

I have seen many, many writers harmed by critique groups, and the harm ranges from mild to irreparable. The mild harm is when a writer gets in, realizes his mistake after a few months, and gets out. More severe harm occurs when a good writer gets into a critique group, has his good writing, or rather good storytelling, turned into slop by listening to bad advice, gets lost in the maze of advice, doesn't know how the heck he's supposed to write anymore, and spends years trying to regain what he had before he ever allowed a story to get critiqued.

The irreparable harm is done, and I've seen it happen many times, when a darned good writer gets so lost and discouraged by tons of conflicting advice that he stops writing altogether. This is not an uncommon occurence. It's been my experience that good writers usually quit faster and more often than bad writers.

Part of the problems is that no more than ten percent or so of those in critique groups have a clue about what it takes to make a story publishable. Pubishable is seldom about good or bad, showing or telling, passive sentences in media res, or any one of a dozen other "rules" that critique groups use to turn a good story into slop. Sometimes, in some stories, tell works better than show, passive says exactly what should be said, and in media res is a horrible way to begin.

Which gives rise to one of the seemingly sensible but biggest myths out there. . .if enough readers tell you something is wrong, change it. This is horrible advice, almost guaranteed to screw up any writer. If nine writers in a group tell you something is wrong, and one tells you it's right, you'll usually be better off listening to the one because that's about the percentage of writers in any group who really knows what he's talking about.

The lousy part of it all is that the writers being harmed the most are almost always the ones who will, for months on end, swear they're being helped the most. They keep saying this right up to the day when discouragement overpowers blind faith, and they either stop writing, or, if very lucky, go away and stop listening to bad advice.

I think the biggest problem on the group side may be that outside of editors and most pro writers in your genre, almost no one reads a manuscript with the same eye and attitude they use to read an already published story. Thwe job of a critique group is to find out what's wrong and tell the writer how to fix it, and they will, by God, find out what's wrong, even if nothing is, and tell you how to fix it, even if the "fix" breaks everything meaningful about the story.

If you want to try an interesting experiment, find a large critique group, preferably an in person group simply because I don't like posting anyone else's writing online, and give them a story tp critique. But not just any story. Copy one by a famous writer, put the name of an unpublished writer on it, (Make the writer up, if you like), and ask the group to give it an honest critique, including their opinion of whether or not it's publishable.
I've done this many times, including with groups that had well-pubished writers as members, and the story always gets shredded. On only a couple of occasions has any member of any group said that the story might be publishable as is.

I haven't done this to be mean, but in an attempt to get groups to understand that they do read a manuscript in a different way, and usually tear stories apart needlessly, and in ways that simply do not matter.

The biggest problem on the writer side may be that, because so many groups are out there, and so many new writers encourage involvment in them, the writer tries to substitute a group for things that would help, such as writing classes and workshops taught by top editors and pro writer who specialize in your genre. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for, and a writer is a hundred times better off spending some money to find people who really know what they're doing.

I also think a writer is better off with no help at all, other than reading much, writing often, and submitting everything, than he is with the wrong help. He'll improve faster, sell quicker, and be much happier than he will be after the typical group experience.

All this presupposes that the writer has some talent in the first place, of course, but then again, most members of most critique groups will never sell anything, anywhere, for any amount of money.

Click to expand...

Your view on critique groups is interesting. I don't actually have enough experience to try to oppose your argument. It would take a writer who has been involved in the critiquing process much longer than I have and who is more committed to it than I am. If someone sees this conversation and feels passionately about the subject, they can post.

On Critters, the claim is made that those who are part of the group are more likely to get published, and stats are revealed to prove the case. Do you dispute this claim and the statistics that are shown?

I've gotten some good advice on a few stories there, and I've rejected some advice that I felt wasn't useful. For me, it was a positive experience. That's the extent of my experience with critique groups. Again, some other writer with greater experience would be better qualified to offer an opposing argument on this topic

Robert E. Keller said:

If someone sees this conversation and feels passionately about the subject, they can post.

Click to expand...

I saw the conversation and feel passionately about it, but i don't want to get involved in a debate. I can't see how one would be useful here. It'll just come down to 'i think this' versus 'i think that.'

Critique groups aren't for everybody, just like peas and carrots aren't for everybody. Different things work for different people. Critique groups will help some and not help (or hurt) others. I particularly think a critique group will hurt more than help if one person is the major authority and influence. Too often that's translates as a chance for somebody to stroke their own ego or attempt to mold a group to their way of thinking and writing.

A critique group is definitely *not* something that will transform you into a publishable writer all on its own, but for some it is a big help.

I will present the following as a contrasting opinion rather than an entry to debate:

I, personally, think the usefulness of critique groups falls in the middle (as is often the case with many things people argue about based on opinion or anecdotal evidence) of 'they're the most amazing things ever' and 'they're useless and will irreparably harm you.' I also feel that passionately urging people to avoid them like the plague is just as harmful as telling someone they're the thing that'll make them publishable (basically what i said above).

I also feel very strongly that all writers should be open to advice from anybody. Doesn't mean they have to apply the advice, but they should at least be able to consider it.

For three reasons.

One, the advice may actually be useful and even if it's not it sharpens our ability to critically examine.

Two, stubbornly rejecting advice can be very detrimental. For an aspiring writer it may mean they miss opportunities to correct fundamental faults with their ability to tell a story and present said story, and for an established author it means they're far more likely to develop 'golden word' syndrome and think that everything they put on paper is the word of a divine being. Confidence in one's ability is good; arrogance is not.

Three, it helps a writer build up an immunity to negative feedback. If a writer gets put off writing because someone shreds their story in a critique, then they won't last long in a world where most agents and magazine editors send back form rejections and where breaking through the mass to reach the top flight is a very difficult thing indeed.

Of course, as with most things i say, that is only my opinion and people are free to ignore it if they don't agree with it

Iz

Robert E. Keller said:

Your view on critique groups is interesting. I don't actually have enough experience to try to oppose your argument. It would take a writer who has been involved in the critiquing process much longer than I have and who is more committed to it than I am. If someone sees this conversation and feels passionately about the subject, they can post.

Click to expand...

I've seen some of what James is saying when I've acted as a critique partner for people.

One story I critiqued had been altered based on feedback from a writers' group. I put a line in the story and suggested cutting everything before that point. It turned out I'd marked the original beginning of the story... everything before the line had been added for the group.

Another started off in a wordy and awkward way. Then it switched to a natural sounding voice. It was clear which bits where the author's and which bits were written by committee.

On Critters, the claim is made that those who are part of the group are more likely to get published, and stats are revealed to prove the case. Do you dispute this claim and the statistics that are shown?

Click to expand...

I can't talk about their claim, but the claim of having stats is shady. How do they get accurate stats for members who aren't in their group, seeing as they're not in their group and not there to be surveyed?

If they're using some sort of general slushpile stat, that isn't valid. People who join a critique group are self-selected and don't represent a cross-section of the slushpilers. To have a fair test, you'd need to get people to volunteer for a critique group, not let them critique each other for a length of time, and then compare them to those who were allowed to critique each other.

I've gotten some good advice on a few stories there, and I've rejected some advice that I felt wasn't useful. For me, it was a positive experience. That's the extent of my experience with critique groups. Again, some other writer with greater experience would be better qualified to offer an opposing argument on this topic

Click to expand...

Everyone has to decide what works for them. The danger is that writing groups promote the idea of critique groups as the only solution out there... which is disheartening to writers who can't cope with that environment.

I know I don't cope with it very well. I find it difficult to process twenty different opinions at once, especially as they often use terms I have to Google. I find it easier to have a critique partner.

Robert E. Keller said:

On Critters, the claim is made that those who are part of the group are more likely to get published, and stats are revealed to prove the case. Do you dispute this claim and the statistics that are shown?

I've gotten some good advice on a few stories there, and I've rejected some advice that I felt wasn't useful. For me, it was a positive experience. That's the extent of my experience with critique groups. Again, some other writer with greater experience would be better qualified to offer an opposing argument on this topic

Click to expand...

I don't deny the stats, though I can't think how they could possibly get accurate stats that let them know how writers are doing who never come to critters?

But it isn't the writers who are helped by critique groups that matter, it's the ones who are harmed, and my experience tell me this percentage always outweighs any percentage that tells you who gets published and who doesn't. And even critters doesn't up the percentage much.

And I know critters has the same problem with the difference between a published story and an unpublished manuscript because I've had friends run such stories through there.

But I'm not saying critique groups are always bad. I didn't mean to be that negative. A writer who knows enough to ignore the bad advice and take the good, who doesn't listen to too many negative voices, can often be helped by any group.

And smaller critique groups that focus primarily on one type of writing, and that have high membership standards, can be very valuable for any writer who can get into one.

I will say that no critique group, however good, substitutes for a professional level class or workshop run by professional writers and professional editors.

Going to add in from the nonpaying markets' side of the house (back on original topic, though I also have thoughts on the crit group side thread).

I'm an editor for an online, nonpaying magazine. We take a very broad spectrum, and we also take poetry and humor -- both of which are hard to find markets that will pay.

We've had a number of our contributors tell us we were their first publication. I know this gave them the confidence to submit to other, paying markets.

We've had a number of stories we took because we enjoyed them, not necessarily because they were groundbreaking. We've had some that blew our socks off. We've had plenty we rejected, for one reason or another.

I've suggested, more than once, that a contributor send their story to a paying market, or an editor at a publishing house, because I've thought it was worth it for them to try the paying markets first. So far, the responses have been that they hope to have their story with us, at Raphael's Village, pay or no pay. I consider that a compliment.

Not everyone's in it for the money. I strongly encourage those who are to start at the top and work down, but nonpaying markets can turn into prestigious and/or paying markets. It's what we're hoping to do, and I know we're not alone there.

Jamesaritchie said:

If there's an exception to the paying market rule, it's college literary magazines, but an awful lot of these pay, too. Not much, usually, but the better ones do pay something, and some pay reasonably well.

Click to expand...

I am impressed to see how many of them pay semi-pro rates. But I'd still rather be published in Conjunctions (which pays zip) than something called Space Squid or Vestal Review (which pay semi-pro). They may be great publications, and I look forward to researching them and finding out, but I'm basing my submission order on a different (and equally superficial) factor: which journals have name recognition and turn up in the Pushcart Prizes anthology (and hence might impress an agent).

On the crit group question:

Having judged ms. both as an editor and (occasionally) as a member of a crit group, I agree that these are two different ways of reading. Critters look for flaws (often, anyway). Editors look for whether the story is appropriate for their publication and grabs them, period. Rules are made to be broken, as long as the story works. Small flaws can be ironed out later.

I think the best critters are those who can recognize and name their own subjective biases ("I would never choose to read this story, but people who love mainstream Southern gothic fiction might love it"). Those who realize that, while bad writing is easy to pick out (so, no, not everything is relative), there are many, many kinds of good writing for different audiences.

Fuchsia Groan said:

I am impressed to see how many of them pay semi-pro rates. But I'd still rather be published in Conjunctions (which pays zip) than something called Space Squid or Vestal Review (which pay semi-pro). They may be great publications, and I look forward to researching them and finding out, but I'm basing my submission order on a different (and equally superficial) factor: which journals have name recognition and turn up in the Pushcart Prizes anthology (and hence might impress an agent).

Click to expand...

No one said that all paying markets are better than all non-paying markets, but if you want to impress an agent, a sale to The New Yorker makes a much better impression than a sale to a small press, even if that small press story wins a Pushcart.

And being selected for Best American Short Stories is also more impressive. simply because the competition is keener.

Right or wrong, money matters, and teh fact taht soemone is willing to pay you for your writing is much more impressive than a prize like Pushcart. Even more impressivle is when you get paid a lot of money, and beat out the world's best writers in the process, as you do with a sale to a national slick, or get placement in a BEST that also looks at stories from small and giant magazines alike.

Once I decided that I wanted to pursue writing as a career, I decided that I would only be paid for my writing. The downside, of course, is that I only have two publications, since there's a lot more competition in paying markets. But I think a big part of becoming a pro is treating yourself like one. That means my work is valuable and I deserve to get paid. If it's not up to par, I put it to the side and write something better.

Jamesaritchie said:

Right or wrong, money matters, and teh fact taht soemone is willing to pay you for your writing is much more impressive than a prize like Pushcart.

Click to expand...

I can't agree for my case, because I know my one (paid) publication is worth next to nothing where an agent is concerned. If it were the New Yorker, that would be another story. I don't think the New Yorker publishes out of its slushpile anymore, though I could be wrong. Anyway, it's a long, long shot — so long I don't bother. Basically, I look at who's being published in a mag, and if they all have several books out already, I know my work won't get much of a look. (Not reproaching — just saying. People pay a lot to subscribe to the New Yorker, and they want Jonathan Lethem and Stephen King, not someone they've never heard of. Twenty years ago, my college friends used to get personal, encouraging rejections from the NYer, but I haven't heard of that happening today. One of those friends is now writing nonfiction regularly for the NYer, and his fiction still hasn't appeared in its pages, though he's had short stories published elsewhere. It's a tough one.)

If a magazine publishes a mix of known quantities and interesting unknown writers, I go for it. I do still submit to other very hard mags, such as McSweeney's, but for the name value, not the promise of cash.

Most of the "literary" writers I've known don't make a living from selling their writing, but from teaching writing. They're midlisters at best. I know an author whose debut novel garnered national reviews, some glowing, yet his agent dumped him because of his low sales. Of course there are exceptions, literary bestsellers like Jonathan Franzen ... but much lit fic seems pretty academic. For better or worse.

It's good to get a different perspective, though. I think the academic literary fiction establishment does encourage unknown writers to be humble, perhaps too humble, and not to seek anything as crass as a paycheck. It's about Art, right? Well, maybe. But not solely.

Fuchsia Groan said:

I can't agree for my case, because I know my one (paid) publication is worth next to nothing where an agent is concerned. If it were the New Yorker, that would be another story.

Click to expand...

Don't be too sure about that! A paid sale shows you can sell your work, even if you only made 5 bucks. The more sales you make, the more respect you will find. I believe it helps reassure an agent to know you can sell your stuff, and it shows you're serious about writing. (Actually, I know this from personal experience through my own novel queries.) Awards are great too, certainly. Anything you can post in your e-mail that reflects positively on your writing background should be exploited to the fullest. As James said, a sale to the New Yorker would be grand. But take whatever you can get. Don't sell yourself short.