Sounds like backwards advice to me. I say get pub'd when/where you can, and build up your portfolio.
Is it worth accepting these contract terms..?
- Thread starter cairnchime
- Start date
Sounds like backwards advice to me. I say get pub'd when/where you can, and build up your portfolio.
If you're always starting at the bottom you'll never know how good you are.
You don't need a portfolio if the writing is good enough. The only real use of a history of published works is that editors/agents will take you more seriously and give your material a complete read instead of stopping after one page if it's not perfect. It won't really influence whether they print your story or not unless you're so well published that your name helps to sell your work (which will never happen if you submit exclusively to small markets).
You don't need a portfolio if the writing is good enough. The only real use of a history of published works is that editors/agents will take you more seriously and give your material a complete read instead of stopping after one page if it's not perfect. It won't really influence whether they print your story or not unless you're so well published that your name helps to sell your work (which will never happen if you submit exclusively to small markets).
I disagree with you, Steve.
A magazine with hardly any circulation won't provide any exposure worth having, if it provides any at all. The OP would be far better off hanging onto her rights and submitting the work to more established magazines which have better circulation figures and a recognised name. It they reject her she could consider dropping her submissions by a notch or two. But this publication doesn't seem to offer anything of particular value.
A magazine with hardly any circulation won't provide any exposure worth having, if it provides any at all. The OP would be far better off hanging onto her rights and submitting the work to more established magazines which have better circulation figures and a recognised name. It they reject her she could consider dropping her submissions by a notch or two. But this publication doesn't seem to offer anything of particular value.
Let's put it another way.
What do you think would be the best option for a writer keen on establishing her career: a contract with a V G von Holtzbrinck or Hachette Livre imprint, or a contract with a micropress?
A book which is publishable by the first or second option would almost certainly be snapped up by the micropress: but if the author submitted it there first, she wouldn't know what she'd missed out on.
Or, to put it another way, I've never heard of an unestablished, no-reputation press turning a book down because it's too good for them.
Anybody with a basic knowledge of the interwebs can jump online and call themselves a publisher. I could do it right now. You could send me your story, and I could have it up on CreateSpace within days. I won't pay you an advance, of course. Instead, I will take 70% of the profits for my efforts of uploading a file and stamping your title on a predesigned cover. But, relax, that means you get 30% royalties. Doesn't that sound awesome?
I'm using this as an extreme example. Most small presses start with all the best of intentions and some go on to be wonderful, well-respected companies. But if they can't do anything for you that you can't do yourself, then they're just as useless to authors as my imaginary company.
The awesome thing about publishing is that you don't have to be well-known to find success.
No, no they don't.
You can get "exposure" at the click of a button. There's nothing a tiny non-paying pub like this one can do that you can't do for yourself.
Have a Website. Tweet. Engage with the community, and especially for a QUILTBAG interested author, engage with the queer community. You'll get more "exposure" writing for Autostraddle than you will for an anthology.
For one thing, anthologies aren't exactly being snapped up by readers—of any orientation. An anthology edited by Ellen Kushner or Datlow or Laura Gilman—that's a different thing. This just sounds exploitive.
For another, money flows towards the writer. The publications who offer you exposure but want rights are generally exploiting you.
A creative commons license? And no money?
Run like hell.
They're not doing anything you couldn't do yourself—and their licensing scheme sounds like they're pretty clueless about professional publishing.
That's daft.
You don't start at the bottom. You start at the top. You might be sellign a story to a no-name publisher who will fold in a year (taking your rights with them) when you could have sold the same story to Tor or Bantam or Harper Collins.
I'd suggest skipping the bottom altogether. There's no point. They're at the bottom because they can't/don't sell to readers and / or they're clueless.
i see everyone else has beat me to it, but Steve, a bad credit is a bad credit...if you pubbed in The No-name Journal and the agent has to google it to find it (they won't) it says "this guy is new". If you trot that out like it was an invite from the Queen of England, then they have to decide if it says "this guy is new" or even worse, "this guy is a naive dick and nightmate to work with". Neither are good.
This is almost the exact same thing as anywhere else--in the biological sciences, it isn't like you shoot for "The Teeny Journal of Armenian Biosciences" in the hope eventually the folks at Nature will take you; your prior pub will actually work against you. Because it says the only place you can go is as a small fish in smaller ponds. It begins to create low, low expectations. So, you shoot for the top of what is reasonable, and work your way down....and when you get to a certain level, you stop subbing instead of sinking low enough it actively hurts you.
This is almost the exact same thing as anywhere else--in the biological sciences, it isn't like you shoot for "The Teeny Journal of Armenian Biosciences" in the hope eventually the folks at Nature will take you; your prior pub will actually work against you. Because it says the only place you can go is as a small fish in smaller ponds. It begins to create low, low expectations. So, you shoot for the top of what is reasonable, and work your way down....and when you get to a certain level, you stop subbing instead of sinking low enough it actively hurts you.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,049
- Reaction score
- 770
- Location
- Clearlake Park, CA
- Website
- www.strokingthepen.com
Welcome to the forums, Steve.
No, it's not working backwards.
What you are talking about is settling, which is something you should never do.
Wouldn't you rather sell a story for $500 than $10 or copies?
The only way you can do that is start at the top and work your way down.
Last edited:
The OP mentioned that there was payment offered.
(I made the same mistake in an earlier post.)
Hi, Steve. Welcome to AW. I'm sure you mean well, but your advice to grab anything offered is a bad idea. That's the sort of desperation that causes authors to accept exploitive contracts which grab rights and offer nothing in return, that prompts people to pay thousands of dollars to vanity presses just to "get their name out there" or shove poorly edited manuscripts out on Kindle without being prepared for the rigors of self-publishing.
A start up with no visibility is just like shouting into the wind. What's the point if no one hears you? There is no real "portfolio." If you are querying an agent and list short stories published by No One's Heard of U Press, the agent will ignore that as a credit. It isn't a credit. It means nothing.
Add in the rights grab and you've got an all around bad idea.
Last edited:
On the subject of my previous comment I'm finding it very interesting that several people on this thread are hearing "QUILTBAG interested" and assuming "queer female". Or are you reading "transgender" and assuming male-to-female transition?
For the complete avoidance of doubt - there are two flavours of transsexual, and I'm the other one. As I said to Old Hack, it's 'he'.
For the complete avoidance of doubt - there are two flavours of transsexual, and I'm the other one. As I said to Old Hack, it's 'he'.
Cairn, I'm so sorry I made that mistake: if you'd PMed me I'd have happily corrected it but doing so seems a bit pointless now.
I prefer not to revert to an automatic he/his/him if someone's user-name or profile doesn't make their gender clear: I use she/her/her more often if there's nothing to go on, as you'll see if you read more of my posts here. So please don't assume that I assumed you were female because of what you write about: I referred to you as a female because I wasn't sure, I had to pick one or the other if I wanted to write a coherent response. It was an entirely random decision, and once again, I'm sorry if it caused you any upset at all.
I prefer not to revert to an automatic he/his/him if someone's user-name or profile doesn't make their gender clear: I use she/her/her more often if there's nothing to go on, as you'll see if you read more of my posts here. So please don't assume that I assumed you were female because of what you write about: I referred to you as a female because I wasn't sure, I had to pick one or the other if I wanted to write a coherent response. It was an entirely random decision, and once again, I'm sorry if it caused you any upset at all.
I mentioned a television show with m>f transition, and my friend (also m>f). The vast majority of cases covered by the media are m>f. There are far more out gay men than women in the media.
If you're particular about your pronouns, may I suggest filling out your profile?
If you want gendered pronouns to reflect your gender, fill out your profile.
Given the f to m ratio on the board, Old Hack has a better chance at guessing by going with female pronouns.