Readers or Writers?
by Kevin Ahearn
with Bill Bowler, Gary Inbinder,
Carmen Ruggero, Bertil Falk, and Don Webb
Don,
One of the problems I have working with a ‘vanity’ agency and publisher is that I believe an agency should make money from readers rather than writers. The company publishes books they don’t even bother to read.
There’s a tricky balance here. If you tell the writers there’s more work to be done on the ‘books’ they firmly believe they have already completed, then they’ll go somewhere else.
Should Bewildering Stories tell writers more work needs to be done on their stories, will they go somewhere else? “Quantity has a quality all its own,” Lenin once said, but is that any way to run an agency or a website?
“If we all agreed, we’d all have the same wife,” said LBJ and he’s got a point. This cannot be about what I think is “good” or whether or not I “like” it, but does it keep the reader reading. What’s the reward for the time spent?
Does Bewildering Stories better serve writers or readers?
That’s a question worth considering.
Above all, Bewildering Stories is an opportunity to post writers' works that might otherwise never see print. But be advised that each and every work is a "perspective" on Bewildering Stories.
To water down or even lose that "perspective" could in turn, limit the opportunity of Bewildering Stories. That would be a shame.
Kevin
[Bill Bowler] Since there’s no money in our model (we’ve swapped in time, instead), the only things left are art, which some call entertainment, and education.
How do we serve the writers? We provide free editorial services, an occasional writing lesson, bragging rights, and a readership base. How do we serve the readers? We collect a bunch of good free stuff for them to read.
[Gary Inbinder] As far as I know, Bewildering Stories is one of the only magazines — online or print — that provides constructive criticism to submitting writers, and that’s a benefit to both writers and readers.
Paying magazines — and I’m not talking about nickel and dime payments — tend to publish work by people they know and like. If they don’t know the writer, then the work must conform exactly to what the editors’ want, and presumably what they believe their readership wants.
If the editors and readership want brilliantly written stories, preferably by people they know and like or those who slavishly imitate those they know and like, that’s what they’ll buy. If they want meretricious garbage, likewise preferably by people they know and like, or their imitators, that’s what they’ll buy.
If their slush-readers get a submission from someone they don’t know then they’ll reject it unless it conforms exactly to what their editors want. So, brilliant masterpieces and meretricious garbage will be rejected equally, either by form or by the “black-hole” method, without any comment or criticism, because the only comment would be a useless, “You didn’t submit what we want,” or a provocative “We don’t know you and we don’t like you.”
[Carmen Ruggero] “Vanity” publishers may call themselves publishers, but in fact they’re in the printing business. That’s why they print books they’ve never read. They are under no obligation to read, much less edit the work. Editing is a separate service, and quite costly. And after the book has been printed, mistakes and all, the writer is responsible for marketing his own book.
A genuine publishing house will first accept manuscripts from writers they know have public appeal. Which means we all have a lot of work and a lot of learning to do. Publishers, are in the business of selling books. They promote and sell the book, the author gets royalties.
I am grateful for websites like Bewildering Stories; they not only help writers grow in their craft but also offer them a venue for their work, which would otherwise be stuck inside a desk drawer. I applaud those who have not just the knowledge but the inclination to help.
I think the other questions have been well covered. My personal opinion is that we make choices in life. We can take good advice and learn from it, or not.
[Bertil Falk] Edward D. Hoch, who died in January, is said to be the only person who could make a living by writing short stories and nothing but short stories after the demise of the short story magazines in the past. Over the past forty years or so he had one short story in every issue of Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine.
I had known him since the beginning of the 1970's, and he once told me the following thing: He wrote and sent his stories to all magazines that existed way back in the past. His stories were always rejected until one day he sold his first story in 1955. Then slowly slowly, he sold more stories and became well known, a favourite of Ellery Queen and praised by John Dickson Carr.
All his stories that had been rejected were ultimately sold. He said: "As soon as an editor who always rejects you is replaced, send your stories to the new editor." As Gary has said, editors have certain ideas that limit them.
Interestingly enough, before Hoch was well-known, EQMM turned down his remarkable story "The Oblong Room." It was accepted by The Saint Mystery Magazine and won an Edgar, a fine illustration to Gary's statement that "brilliant masterpieces and meretricious garbage will be rejected equally."
It is easy to forget that Bewildering Stories is a fantastic achievement, a weekly online magazine with so many things. In the good old days of the pulps and the slicks that published fiction, just a few publications did what Bewildering Stories does.
When in Milwaukee last year, I showed Bewildering Stories to Jon Jordan, who is one of the editors of Crime Spree Magazine. He hardly believed his eyes when he realized that Bewildering Stories is published on a weekly basis. "Amazing!" was the word he used. "It is difficult to keep Crime Spree going," or something to that effect.
I agree with Bill and Gary. Bewildering Stories is good for readers as well as writers. Let us spread the message: Bewildering Stories exists!
[Don Webb] Another member of our Review Board points out that it’s not clear what Kevin is talking about. I have to agree. And does Kevin work for a “vanity press”? It’s hard to tell. Whatever, Kevin enjoys being provocative, and he likes to zoom along in the stratosphere.
Kevin’s motivation in writing to us came from two of the short stories in issue 302; it doesn’t matter which ones. Kevin’s bête noire is what he calls “incomplete” stories, ones that leave the readers with more questions than answers. And he’s concerned lest readers consider such stories a waste of time and as typical of the fare we offer.
Well, okay, we can look at things in the small and in the large at the same time. Let’s take the microscopic view first. One of the stories to which Kevin objects currently ranks high on the Hot Potatoes list; otherwise it will not be included in our all-important Third Quarterly Review.
The other one is unlikely to make the cut either, but the vote is split: 4 editors rated it slightly above average; 2 others, below average; 2 others, an outright flunk. The overall assessment seems quite fair.
We can take three lessons in a larger perspective:
Some works are unsuccessful on their own terms, and a few get by us. But I don’t worry too much about them: even the print magazines have their disappointments and even embarrassments at times; how much more likely are we, then, to do the same?
And bad stories can be instructive, even inspiring. Readers may snort, “Heck, my dog can write better than that. I’ll send something to Bewildering Stories today!” Do that; we want to see it — though at the risk of being called doggist, preferably your prose, not Bowser’s.
Other works are near misses. As we’ve seen, some readers will give them credit for being a glass half full; others, for a glass half empty. Those are grist for The Critics’ Corner mill. Again, so much the better.
But what about the rest? As Bill says, we have a lot of good stuff. Professional — as opposed to amateur — readers will write and tell us why it’s good, and what writers can learn from it.
Kevin’s questioning a few stories is a kind of backhanded compliment: if that’s all he has to worry about, we must be doing something right; and, in fact, our batting average is pretty darn good.
Bewildering Stories is distinguished by a number of things, many of which our colleagues have mentioned. It’s also distinguished by a truly bewildering amount of variety. Take the good where you find it, and expect something different every time.
Copyright © 2008 by Bewildering Stories
