NO, I don't think you were too harsh about your response. His commentary was best aimed at a publisher who flat-out says that "exposure is your only payment." I don't submit to those markets, whereas I will submit to markets that pay something, even if it's just a pittance. There's a honking huge difference in attitude between the two, and some editor who says "Exposure is your only payment" isn't someone I want to work with. I'd much rather stake a gamble on a newer magazine and editor in the hopes that this person and magazine will rise over the years and I'll be part of it. Give me a chance at something that could be an award winner and yeah, I'll go for it.
Like most writers, I do start at the top and work my way through the markets. However, I'm also at the point in quantity of short stories to market in my inventory where I have a bunch of stories to sell, and not enough of the higher paying markets to submit them to. That means I'm looking at smaller markets, especially given the timing of submission processes. Am I going to sit on inventory and wait for higher paying markets to open up? No. That's stupid. The best goal is to keep the work circulating.
I have a problem with one comment here where the writer dismisses M-Brane as a market for those who just want to get published. Not all of us write in the style favored by the higher-paying markets, nor have all of us reached the exalted position where we can sell everything we write to a higher market. While I understand the argument, I disagree with his conclusions, partially because I do know midlist, intermediate-level, successful writers who disagree with him. Not every well-regarded market out there pays the higher rate, and editors have developing careers, just like writers do. Scorning the smaller markets may mean missing out on the rising career of an editor who may well end up in the top ranks later on. I'll happily take a smaller payment to work with someone who puts out a quality product which may, eventually, lead to something bigger (and yes, M-Brane strikes me as one of those possibilities).
Essentially, in a writing career, you have to take the long point of view. Writing fiction is unlikely to ever give any but a small handful the amount of money to live on. If I want to seriously make money that makes a difference, I'll be adding nonfiction to my string of work (which is going to be happening if my day job remains at part time hours). I've seen friends who've gone from making a decent living at writing fiction to not making much, if any money, from it at all. Did their writing suddenly decline in quality? No. The markets changed, and with that change, the niche those persons occupied went away.
The only sure money-maker in writing is in nonfiction, period. If money is your priority, then you're not writing genre fiction. You're writing nonfiction, and lots of it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rosecarmine
(no subject)
Date: 2010-07-23 01:34 pm (UTC)Like most writers, I do start at the top and work my way through the markets. However, I'm also at the point in quantity of short stories to market in my inventory where I have a bunch of stories to sell, and not enough of the higher paying markets to submit them to. That means I'm looking at smaller markets, especially given the timing of submission processes. Am I going to sit on inventory and wait for higher paying markets to open up? No. That's stupid. The best goal is to keep the work circulating.
I have a problem with one comment here where the writer dismisses M-Brane as a market for those who just want to get published. Not all of us write in the style favored by the higher-paying markets, nor have all of us reached the exalted position where we can sell everything we write to a higher market. While I understand the argument, I disagree with his conclusions, partially because I do know midlist, intermediate-level, successful writers who disagree with him. Not every well-regarded market out there pays the higher rate, and editors have developing careers, just like writers do. Scorning the smaller markets may mean missing out on the rising career of an editor who may well end up in the top ranks later on. I'll happily take a smaller payment to work with someone who puts out a quality product which may, eventually, lead to something bigger (and yes, M-Brane strikes me as one of those possibilities).
Essentially, in a writing career, you have to take the long point of view. Writing fiction is unlikely to ever give any but a small handful the amount of money to live on. If I want to seriously make money that makes a difference, I'll be adding nonfiction to my string of work (which is going to be happening if my day job remains at part time hours). I've seen friends who've gone from making a decent living at writing fiction to not making much, if any money, from it at all. Did their writing suddenly decline in quality? No. The markets changed, and with that change, the niche those persons occupied went away.
The only sure money-maker in writing is in nonfiction, period. If money is your priority, then you're not writing genre fiction. You're writing nonfiction, and lots of it.