james_nicoll

I am pretty sure that the actual words belong to the person who wrote them, and publishing them without permission technically violates their copyright. Someone with actual legal knowledge may wish to correct me, though. (As you say, the letters as physical objects belong to whoever the letters were sent to. Things might get a little dicy if the letter was sent electronically.)

Of course, if anyone wanted to complain about their letter being published, they could send a DMCA takedown notice. Hasn't happened yet, and there is a fair-use argument that could be made (the publication is non-commercial, generally speaking partial, and serves a critical/educational purpose).

That said, while people have been plenty happy to send me death threats and lawsuit threats, nobody ever told me, "Hey, take down my letter." (Which of course I would have, even if the correspondence was Burtian in its sloppiness.) Working assumption: some people love any sort of attention.

Do you know that the people whose letters you use read your LJ? Or if the ones who do are aware of their legal rights?

So far, as my LJ is very widely read and linked to and people have even sometimes made specific reference to the LJ and to the pratice (both before and after their letters are posted), I'd say that most of them do read my LJ or quickly become aware of my LJ during the course of the struggle.

As far as how aware they are; I suspect they aren't all that aware. At least the guy who threatened to sue me for "libel" for rejecting his story in the first place didn't exactly strike me as a legal eagle. Nor did the three characters who tried to get me to buy first rights for stories whose first rights had already been expended.

My general take since you started doing it is if they're submitting to you, don't read the instructions, and respond badly then it's their fault. I'm not a writer seeking publication, and I'd have heard of you by now even if I didnt read your journal.

If you're submitting to an online pub with a named editor, a quick Google would be a plan. If you don't know your market you're never going to sell in it anyway.

It seems to me risky to depend on all of the people whose letters you quote being legally inept. All it takes is one cranky lawyer/writer (and lawyer/writers aren't exactly unheard of in SF: I can think of at least three, at least if I include ex-lawyers) to cause a lot of havoc. Granting for the moment that "there is a fair-use argument that could be made", how much money are you willing to spend to make it?

Obviously, the same issues come up when other editors quote (e)mail so if it's incorrect for you to do it, it's incorrect for them as well regardless of how long they've been in the field.

If you're sufficiently worried about legal defense funds, feel free to donate to the magazine.

I am concerned about not being able to say "you know, I wondered if this would ever be an issue way back in May of 2008 and here's the proof."

Glad to be of help then!

There is a difference between what is legal and what is polite or professional.

I was making specific reference to the question asked in the post. As far as polite and professional I've found that the ideas people have in their heads about either tend to vary fairly widely and often hae only different intersections with actual practice.

Pretty much anyone who reads slush for the first time, for example, thinks that the polite and professional thing to do is to read every story all the way through -- how can you have an opinion on something without reading it from beginning to end? (Over the years I've broken in about thirty different slush readers for a number of different projects and in different fields: short SF, poetry, essay contests, etc.)

After a few days, they either give up or adopt to actual practice, because what is actually polite is to get the work done quickly rather than make everyone wait and what is actually professional is to focus one's attention on that material the readers actually want.

With e-subs (and email in general), there is increased tendency for marginal figures to submit stories and then argue back or threaten -- the anger that would disappate over the time it would take to write a letter, print it out, and stamp and address an envelope is still ripe when it comes to firing back a quick email.

I've seen Ellen Datlow post emails she's received -- both on the old nightshadebooks.com board and more recently in other venues. There are regular "Tales from the Slush Pile" in which funny cover letters are read for the entertainment of the panel-goers at cons, and there's even been correspondence as regards who submits what and how (and responds how to rejections, including snippets of stuff like cover letters) in the old lettercol of Realms of Fantasy. (At one point, even Gene Wolfe got involved in that debate.)

The current dustup has little to do with actual norms of professionalism as seen in the publishing industry and rather everything to do with a lulu.com author -- one who does not believe that editors are even the slightest bit necessary -- successfully playing an angle. Secondarily, as I was not an editor when most of the current cohort of people subbing short stories to SF mags started editing, there is some notion that I am not as "real" an editor as Datlow, van Gelder, et al. Thus, if I do X, that's awful, who do I think I am, etc.. If Datlow had been doing X for years, well then people just lower their eyes and say nothing, even if they think anything of it.

I never said editors are not even the slightest bit necessary; I merely asked, in this day and age, do writers even need editors? You seem to believe that it boils down solely to distribution, which is fine. Me, I tend to feel that the short-form writing marketplace is largely broken lately, and I thought, well, I could either get a dime a word and let someone put it on their online zine, or I could put it on my blog and offer a collection as a free download that people can purchase as a paperback if they'd like to. Since I don't write "fantatwee" or othersuch, I chose the latter option, and I've been rather pleased with the results so far.

I've never read Datlow's (or anyone else's) tales from a slushpile. I've mainly read the Nielsen Haydens, whom I've mentioned, and whom I've never seen do anything like it.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's as commonplace for sf/f editors to ridicule their prospective contributors, as maybe it's commonplace for editors of literary magazines to tell their actual contributors to "eat shit and die."

Also, perhaps it's a difference in background; I was an editor in the trade publishing industry, which is markedly different than the commercial publishing industry, and while refraining from discussion of slush may commonplace in the latter, I think it pretty rarely occurs in the former.

Finally, I'm not sure who doesn't think you're a "real" editor, but I've never claimed such, certainly.

-Will Entrekin

I never said editors are not even the slightest bit necessary; I merely asked, in this day and age, do writers even need editors?

Don't be coy. The question is no more an actual question than "What kind of fool do you think I am?"

You seem to believe that it boils down solely to distribution, which is fine.

Rather explicitly not, since I mentioned a number of other things in our previous discussion, some of which were tied to distribution.

I could either get a dime a word and let someone put it on their online zine, or I could put it on my blog and offer a collection as a free download that people can purchase as a paperback if they'd like to.

Interesting use of the word "or" there, but hey, it's your career or lack of the same.

Maybe it's as commonplace for sf/f editors to ridicule their prospective contributors, as maybe it's commonplace for editors of literary magazines to tell their actual contributors to "eat shit and die."

Well, it's certainly commonplace for you to frame arguments in silly ways. So tell me, is someone who responds to a rejection with, "You're going to die and rot in a grave!" or "Fuck you faggot!" or "Well, the last editor who bought this story understood it," actually a "prospective contributor"?

Seriously, in your experience in trade publishing, how many articles did you see published from people who sent in death and lawsuit threats to the editors who ultimately published them?

Enjoy the rest of your fifteen minutes.

When you break in slush readers, don't you tell them to start reading, stop when they're bored or convinced the story has serious problems, then skim a little or check the ending only if they think it might be worth more work? I'm pretty sure that was one of the first speeches I got at Ace when I was hired.

Yes. And, generally speaking, they insist on doing it their way, or have a very high threshold of boredom initially because they want to "give writers a chance", or are "stuck" on a story because they don't know "why" to reject it, and it takes several conversations and a lot of slush to convince them that the usual method is actually usual for a reason. It takes a few days, sometimes even a week for some.

and in your most case, outing noobs to ridicule them.

Is the word "recent" missing here? At any rate, as has been explained several times, few people are "outed" (that is, named) and not everyone whose mail was posted is a "noob." At least one person has himself been an editor for most of a decade, and another had been widely published and had been harassing people after rejections since email made it easy to do so.

But within the profession, it's, well, exceptional. I'm pretty sure I also got a speech on hiring day about responding politely to all correspondence.

Yeah, I'm also pretty sure that Ace actually got rid of its slushpile due in part to the volume and nature of that correspondence. As did most book publishers and, increasingly, even agents. You're arguing for a method that is not only not sustainable in the days of email, but that indeed has NOT been sustained.

As far as what is exceptional, yes here are a couple other things that are exceptional: email submissions, no form rejections, no hierarchy of slush readers only sending up the best stories for a final decision from the editor. Slush piles look great if one has a "professional shit-eater" that takes care of 98% of it for you.

I've said many times, if enough people don't want editorial comments, I'd be pleased to other shut down the slush pile entirely -- the magazine can be stocked indefinitely with solicitations -- or go to 100% forms. The choice, as always, belongs to the pool of would-be submitters. The only thing asked, and explicitly in the guidelines, is that people do not argue with rejection slips. Well, the overwhelming majority of submitters who have spoken up have been pleased with the methods used so far. (If I posted all the grateful correspondence, I'd post three-five a week, as opposed to twenty over the course of two years.) Only a lulu.com author who sees no need to submit and get paid for his work, and you, who doesn't seem to have sent me any stories either, are taking specific exception.

Why speak on behalf of a group of which you are not a part, and whose ideas you don't share?

When I was slushing, I figured out very quickly how little of a story you need to read to know if it's worth reading more (With really special stories, the title alone is enough.) I frequently would keep reading long past that point (sometimes for the whole story, but I read quickly), just to see if I was wrong. I never was--bad stories stay bad the whole way through.

I also went with a generic more-or-less form letter--something like "Thank you for your submission, "X". Unfortunately, it's not quite what we're looking for, good luck placing it elsewhere." If I liked the story, even while it wasn't good enough to get past me, I might throw some suggestions in there as well, but I went with such a generic letter specifically to avoid having people argue with me about the rejection. Of course, this didn't always work--I once rejected the same guy three times in a row, and he wrote in with a snit because he ran an online magazine, and really he deserved to be rejected by the editor-in-chief, not just a slush reader.

I get uncomfortable whenever I see people posting private correspondence; I'm not sure when netiquette evolved to make publicizing private email okay, but I think it's a bad development.

I can remember when netiquette forbade publication of private email, but I've never seen any justification given for the taboo.

The 'diciness' I was thinking of in that last comment was along the lines of whether you're allowed to print out copies of the email (which I would imagine would be OK) and what you can do with those printed-out copies (which I guess would be whatever you can legally do with a letter mailed to you). So, maybe not so dicy after all.

A rejection is nothing more or less than communication. Same as a customer in a restaurant rejecting an offer of more iced tea.

The offering may have been something the editor never wants, it might have been something the editor does not want at this time, or it may be something the editor might want after it has been modified.

If it is the first, then there is no point in submitting something similar to that editor again. If the second, then similar things should be submitted.

The third case is the complex one. Is the submission the wrong length? The wrong tone? Too similar to other things? Too different? Contains too much or too little adult language? Poorly written? Something else?

Shetterly doesn't seem to allow that there could be a variety of responses, although now that I think about it "'No' means 'keep trying,'" does explain why he kept pestering rasf* with ads for his writing class back when, even when it was explained to him why he should not do this.

Oversimplification leads to poor debate.

I wasn't responding to anything outside of what is said here. I know nothing of the initiating discussion.

At least from early October 1999 to late November 1999 but since my google-fu is weak and google is broken where newsgroups are concenred, it might have been longer.

I do know that your nose was still sufficiently out of joint in Septmber 2000 that you popped up to attempt to rain on the parade when Jo Walton's editor observed that her first book was now a real printed, bound and ready for shipping object.

I note that in that thread you say "but when it comes to what people think appropriate in a newsgroup, my record over the last eight years or so is notably spotty."

Emphasis added by me.

For all that Patrick is Jo's friend, making an announcement on an open usenet forum that a product is available for purchase still seems commercial to me.

Really? In spite of Patrick's comments here, here, and here?

But the important question here is: What does Damon Knight think of top-posting?

I would say "nothing at all," although I understand other people will disagree with me on this.

It's rude and it messes up the sequence of conversation.

>What's wrong with top posting?

He thinks he's above all that.

>What does Damon Knight think of top-posting?

Although, if you have read all of Shetterly's two paragraphs to their bitter end, he allows that "If you believe that no response is also a response, that’s a fine response, too."

That's at least two.

That's a response but what if it's clear that that the set of things you will ever write does not overlap with the set of things the editor will ever buy?

There's some good general advice -- "Don't reject your own story, let the editor do it for you" -- that is often taken to the ridiculous extreme implied here. It's an undercurrent in those occasional long online discussions about whether or not Gordon van Gelder has a "gender bias" in his submissions as well, with the side that considers itself the most righteous squaring its collective jaw and saying, "If van Gelder doesn't like stories about mothers and daughters, I'll just have to write one sooo good that he must buy it."

Ah, the "You don't like Brussel sprouts? You haven't had MY brussel sprouts!" argument.

I think that's the theory behind most "The Devil and (insert name here)" stories.

Yah, but you know what, sometimes some guy does finally eat brussel sprouts made in a certain way and he likes 'em.

Personally, I always recommend reading the magazine in depth before submitting a short story and there are certainly markets I don't submit to (mainly when their stories are so boring I can't make it through one of them) but my method requires rather more thinking and reading than sending everyone everything no matter what.

Gee! Doing the research to find where the best market for your product? That is just crazy talk.

So why is your reaction to those markets not "Ah, they desperately need me here!"? :-) I mean, "I can do better than that" is widely regarded as a key point in the journey to becoming a writer.

Probably just one of my many character flaws!

Whose method requires what?

Well, the people who send me novellas, non-SF/F/H pieces, who find my address in the SFWA or HWA directory and send me hard copy submissions, the people who send me illustrations, the people who send me reprints (sometimes in PDF form right from Amazon Shorts, etc.), people who write in their cover letters "I know you said in your guidelines you'd rather not see this type of story," people who send in submissions when we are closed to submissions, etc.

You should have a ranked list of editors to send a given work to. The ones most likely to accept it (and the ones who pay the most) ought to be at the top. The ones less likely to accept it get it much later, when the choice is between sending it to them or leaving it in a drawer.

If an editor rejects everything you've sent so far, that isn't a reason never to send him anything else. It is a reason not to send him stuff first.

If you can estimate the probabilities accurately, that approach gives the least time to sale. Especially for newer writers, and especially with the newer editors, I'm doubtful how accurate the estimates will be

On the other hand, it was widely suggested in the magazine era, and from various memoirs it sounds like the advice was widely used, to send things to markets in order of decreasing payment scale. At least you know the payment scales accurately. This would result in the highest achievable price, but probably a longer time to sale. Clearly there was *some* "who might buy this" factor in place, since not everybody always started with the Saturday Evening Post; they started with Campbell.

Under US copyright law, the default is that you hold the copyright your own words. It is vastly unlikely that any of the exceptions would come up in correspondence.

I was actually thinking about this last week: if someone sends me a long email, could it be fair use to include a sentence or two in a public discussion of my interactions with that person, or a discussion of some aspect of email generally. (E.g., as an illustration of different styles/levels of formality, or of whether people would put things in email that they wouldn't say in person or on paper.)

I realize that even if it could be, the length of the letter would be one of the relevant factors.

[To state the obvious, you are under no obligation to give a professional opinion here.]

Oh, as you know Redbird-Bob, I was only talking about who holds copyright, not whether subsequent use of copyrighted work would be permissible.

I hadn't bothered to follow the links and have no opinion on the broader context here.