Jibber Jabber - Q1 - 29

Mike,

Indeed, best to wait. If all the results are posted, and you haven't heard - that's when to query.

D

O! that a man might know
The end of this day's business, ere it come;
But it sufficeth that the day will end,
And then the end is known.

How about we move the "write write write" lectures to threads on writing strategy, or something. That is: I'm kind of tired of horsing around here and having people come in and tell me what I should be doing instead. It's a JIBBER JABBER thread on entries to this particular quarter of the contest. I'd like to think we are entitled to blab about waiting for results here without being lectured on how we should approach the writing process.

I've been hesitant to comment on this, but Grayson you've verbalized a concern I've had for a while. We all want to encourage each other and see everyone successful (and I know that includes healthy writing habits) but I have certain times of the day where I cannot write at all (when I have both children at home and in full entertainment mode). I know each of us has a different schedule and I don't want to assume anything about anyone--but I do love these threads because I like to get goofy and have fun and I feel a lot of you guys are my friends.

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this ... So I'll end it there and hopefully not have to jump in and discuss it again.

Back on topic:

So it looks like paper subs are being read? I'll keep an eye out now for mine. I liked the idea someone had about HMs and what nots going out the week of the gala...that would be kinda cool.

It wold be SO cool to have the press release go our simultaneously with the gala and all. Except, of course, that we've heard not a peep about semis and finalists and Joni said it would take another *month*. Of course, she could have meant "a month until the final *winners* are announced, not a month more of rejections waves.

Hope springs eternal.

I'm thinking a wave of paper sub rejections along with HM's for our next response pulse.

I read that as "for our next response puke."

I'm not sure it was an error.

I read that as "for our next response puke."

I'm not sure it was an error.

read it either way...both work!

All things being equal, an established author has a much higher probability of selling an identical story to a pro market than an unestablished author.

Do you have any data to back this up? Because that sounds, no offense, like a rather dubious assumption. Talking to professional writers, they always talk about how often they're still being rejected by various professional markets. Hell, just a week ago, in DWS' Character Voice and Setting Workshop, he opined to us several times about that very thing. It's about the story, and whether it works for the publication the editor is trying to put together, not about the writer, famous or not. Unless, of course, the writer is personally invited to contribute to the anthology or whatever. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Or at least that's what I've come to understand. I could be wrong, of course.

All things being equal, an established author has a much higher probability of selling an identical story to a pro market than an unestablished author.

Do you have any data to back this up? Because that sounds, no offense, like a rather dubious assumption. Talking to professional writers, they always talk about how often they're still being rejected by various professional markets. Hell, just a week ago, in DWS' Character Voice and Setting Workshop, he opined to us several times about that very thing. It's about the story, and whether it works for the publication the editor is trying to put together, not about the writer, famous or not. Unless, of course, the writer is personally invited to contribute to the anthology or whatever. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Or at least that's what I've come to understand. I could be wrong, of course.

Well, actually, all things being equal (as in the hypothetical), it makes perfect sense--presuming the established author has a recognizable name. If you're an editor and two manuscripts come across your desk, both equal in every way that you can see (you just can't pick which you like best, and you don't have room for both), except one was written by Joe Blow and one was written by Stephen King, which are you going to choose? First and foremost, good stories sell magazines. After that, names sell magazines. It's just good business sense to pick the story by King.

But, rarely is an editor going to be in that situation, I'd think. There will be one story they like over another, and in that case the better story wins, because while a name can sell one copy to one person, great stories keep them coming back for more.

~Marina

WotF Winner Q1 2012 (Vol. 29)

WotF Finalist Q2 2010 (Vol. 27)
WotF Finalist Q4 2011 (Vol. 28)
http://lostetter.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/#!/MarinaLostetter

 

All things being equal, an established author has a much higher probability of selling an identical story to a pro market than an unestablished author.

Do you have any data to back this up? Because that sounds, no offense, like a rather dubious assumption. Talking to professional writers, they always talk about how often they're still being rejected by various professional markets. Hell, just a week ago, in DWS' Character Voice and Setting Workshop, he opined to us several times about that very thing. It's about the story, and whether it works for the publication the editor is trying to put together, not about the writer, famous or not. Unless, of course, the writer is personally invited to contribute to the anthology or whatever. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Or at least that's what I've come to understand. I could be wrong, of course.

I never said WOTF winners wouldn't be rejected. I only said that the probability an editor accepted one of their stories would likely be higher because they are a known quantity. I don't think this is a dubious assumption at all. From an editor's perspective it makes a lot of sense. If you have two identical stories, it would be a poor business practice to back an unknown when your goal is to sell magazines. Furthermore, an editor risks upsetting a well-known author who may harbor enough resentment that they never send in another submission. I am not saying this is an ideal situation. All I am saying is that for popular, established authors there is a different dynamic at play. For instance, imagine an editor rejecting something written by Stephen King. Even if the work was bad, having Stephen King's name on the magazine cover would likely sell more incremental copies than a better written story from an unknown. I would also be shocked if the average popular established author's rejection rate is higher than an unknown author.

I definitely don't have any firm empirical evidence, but do have some anecdotal examples. The careers of Patrick Rothfuss and Brad Torgersen come to mind in the sense that the WOTF contest discovered two very talented writers who have sold several books and/or short stories since their win, when before they had sold very little if anything (as far as I know). Moreover, it's that way in most fields. If a member of your family had cancer, you'd want the most credentialed and experienced doctor to help him or her. Furthermore, you'd probably be willing to pay him/her more. If you are a venture capitalist with an opportunity to invest in two companies that do the same thing, it makes more sense for you to back the company with a more experienced entrepreneur. I would posit that the more subjective a pursuit is, the more often this "known quantity" dynamic comes into play. I don't like it, but it is classic human nature to exhibit risk aversion.

Anyway, I should stop talking about the business of writing and whatnot as this is the 1Q29 thread. I need to dig a spider hole before the next 82mm mortar round lands on my position or my squad frags me.

On that note, does any one think more results will come out this week (even with the workshop and the gala in the wings)?

Sean Patrick Hazlett
Winner (2nd Place)
HM x 8
Stories sold: 48 original stories and 9 reprints
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can purchase a copy of my collection here and a copy of my anthology here.

 

MJNL,

You beat me to the punch. And you even used the same Stephen King example. I swear I didn't read yours first.

Ha, yeah, guess we were on the same wavelength. Except...

. Furthermore, an editor risks upsetting a well-known author who may harbor enough resentment that they never send in another submission.

You lost me right about here. This is silly--no offense. But are you going to be insulted when you're a well known author and your story gets rejected? Are you really going to stomp your feet, cry, "How rude!" and never submit there again? You'd run out of markets real quick that way.

You realize that lots of known authors would have to get rejected quite regularly even if the pro magazines only took submissions from names they recognized, right? There just arn't enough pro venues to accommodate every single story out there.

So, actually, it really does come down to the story. You have to write better than the pros (in the editor's eyes) to get into their mag, but how is that really any different from WotF? Even without a name, you still have to write the best story (in KD and the other judge's eyes) in order to win. So, no matter where you go, the editor has to like your story better than everyone else's story.

It's really not that complicated.

ETA: You later examples of a surgeon and start-up company would apply more to a work-for-hire situation, like an anthology invite. When you submit a completed story, the quantity is known--it's right there in black and white.

You lost me right about here. This is silly--no offense. But are you going to be insulted when you're a well known author and your story gets rejected? Are you really going to stomp your feet, cry, "How rude!" and never submit there again? You'd run out of markets real quick that way.

You're making a pretty big assumption here (i.e., that I'll ever be a well known author.)

You're making a pretty big assumption here (i.e., that I'll ever be a well known author.)

*grinning* What are you doing playing around on the forums? Don't you have graphs and statistics to do??

(Translation: it would be really cool - assuming you have time, of course - if you could update your WOTF number crunching.)

You have to write better than the pros (in the editor's eyes) to get into their mag, but how is that really any different from WotF? Even without a name, you still have to write the best story (in KD and the other judge's eyes) in order to win. So, no matter where you go, the editor has to like your story better than everyone else's story.

I'd also venture that someone who skipped the contest and made their first pro sale to Azimov's or F&SF would be on about equal footing with a WOTF published finalist, prestige-wise. The difference is that the contest is designed to be friendlier to newer entrants into the field. I think what I'm getting at though is that most of the winners who go on to have solid careers have probably been working a lot of other markets at the same time.

In a way, if you are more prolific than the contest can accommodate (that is, four stories a year), it seems a bit of a waste to let those stories all pile up until you win the contest, and then blitz the market with a hundred stories, each with a cover letter touting your win. Sure they might be more likely to get a full read because of the credentials, but if they are something you wrote four years before when you were just starting out, are they really how you want to present yourself? Submitting to a market and getting rejected, sometimes with a comment, most often without, is a just like WOTF in that you try to learn something from each rejection. You might learn something about writing, about your own storytelling, or about the market itself. Chances are, if your writing is of the caliber to win WOTF, you will probably get another story or two picked up in another pro market, and then after you win, your letter can list all of your achievements in the field instead of just one.

Just some thoughts. If the conversation has run its course, please don't let me resurrect it. As always, good luck to one and all this week.

You're making a pretty big assumption here (i.e., that I'll ever be a well known author.)

*grinning* What are you doing playing around on the forums? Don't you have graphs and statistics to do??

(Translation: it would be really cool - assuming you have time, of course - if you could update your WOTF number crunching.)

Believe it or not, I'm actually writing right now and listening to a loop of the soundtrack of John Carpenter's Thing to get all the twisted ideas flowing.

Twist my arm. Well, not really. I couldn't resist my nature. (i.e., ).

Since the last post, we added about 21 rejections (to 44 in the original post) assuming that 77-day response is just a fat-fingered typo (and you therefore include it in the data) and that you exclude the 522-day rejection. Assuming a 90% rejection rate and a min and max Duotrope 1Q29 submission population of 84 and 100, those who remain on Duotrope have between a 27% and 42% chance of NOT being rejected. In other words, the odds are ~3 to 4x better for the survivors of getting out of 1Q29 with an HM or better (assuming Duotrope's rejections don't include HMs, which, in some cases, I think they actually do). In other words, the odds I'm citing are actually fairly conservative (and pessimistic).

I am still in Q1 too. Been getting awfully muddy here in the trenches, could do with a nice long bubble-bath.

Just out of curiosity - upon submitting Q1 entries, did people get both the 'thankyou for your submission' email AND the 'you are successfully entered' email? Last quarter I got both, this quarter I only got the former. But it did say in the second email last time that the thankyou email was the 'clue' that one was indeed successfully entered, so I figured that was all fine. Unless of course others got both emails this time which would be kinda bad! Cos ending up with a lost submission would give me the irrits even more than a case of trench-cooties I reckon.

For Q1, I got both emails. For Q2, I submitted on 3/31 and am still waiting for the 2nd confirmation one. I think it took a week or two last time.

Hmm. Did anyone else not get the 2nd email for Q1?

(eta - cos when I said 'last Q' I meant Q4, and 'this Q' I meant Q1, I realise that may not have been clear, with the 'this' quarter really being Q2 now... or is it Q3 oh dear. "This' being the quarter of the thread I am posting in, maybe that is what I meant!)

I've only ever gotten the "thank you for your submission" e-mail, and every time has gone through fine. (Four entries through Q4 v28.)

For Q1, I submitted on 12/31 and received a "Thank you" almost immediately. I received the "You have indeed been entered" e-mail on 1/5.
For Q2, I submitted on 3/31 and received the "Thank you" almost immediately. I have received no other e-mail regarding that submission.

--Mike

Also only got one e-mail this quarter. Again, the system they have set up is finicky at best. There may not be a second e-mail this quarter, and that might not be an issue.

On that note, does any one think more results will come out this week (even with the workshop and the gala in the wings)?

I'm not holding out much hope for hearing anything this week. I think we could get a slew of results towards the end of next week though.

They've been pretty consistent with some news each week. I know the banquet and conference is going on, but I'd still bet there will be some news this week.

For Q1, I submitted on 12/31 and received a "Thank you" almost immediately. I received the "You have indeed been entered" e-mail on 1/5.
For Q2, I submitted on 3/31 and received the "Thank you" almost immediately. I have received no other e-mail regarding that submission.

--Mike

I got the exact same e-mails on the exact same dates; but I also got the "Congrats on Making the Deadline, Now here is an invite if you live near Los Angeles" e-mail on 4/1.

I did a paper sub and haven't received any confirmation whatsoever. Figure everything is fine, anyway. . . it hasn't ever not been! Unlike the e-subs. They probably fixed these but I still like going traditional.

And my last finalist has been bumped from every market that takes Sci-fi novellas at this point, I think. It's actually really hard to sell things that are like 10k+ words. . . now I have no clue what to do with it.

And my last finalist has been bumped from every market that takes Sci-fi novellas at this point, I think. It's actually really hard to sell things that are like 10k+ words. . . now I have no clue what to do with it.

Self-pub?

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Seriously, I would.

I know the banquet and conference is going on, but I'd still bet there will be some news this week.

I'm going to venture to guess that only good news would go out during this particular week. I can't imagine a flood of rejections going out while they're blogging about the winners' workshops.

I know HM's are rejections too, but they're really, really nice ones, so...