An (Imagined) Overheard Conversation Between Two People, Many, Many Years Ago
“So I’m thinking we should start a literary journal.”
“Why? There are already so many.”
“Ours will be better.”
“How?”
“For starters, we’ll make it exclusively online.”
“You mean the World Wide Web? I don’t know. I really can’t see that whole thing taking off. Like I told you, we need to invest in laser discs.”
“Think about it. This online journal would be … respected.”
“How so?”
“We’ll publish really big-name writers.”
“But we don’t have any money. Those writers will probably want money. A lot of money.”
“Don’t worry. I have that covered.”
“I’m almost afraid to ask how.”
“Contests.”
“What?”
“We’ll host contests. Make the writers pay an entry fee. Use a percentage of that to pay our costs.”
“Okay, but how many contests do you plan on having? We can’t have too many.”
“Good point. Then … how about we just make the writers pay an entry fee for regular submissions.”
“You’re crazy.”
“No, seriously, hear me out on this. We have the big-name writers to draw them in, and we’ll offer a sizable payment, but for the writers to submit, they have to pay a fee. Something like — ”
“Five bucks?”
“I was thinking maybe fifty bucks.”
“You are crazy.”
“Fine, how about thirty bucks.”
“Still crazy.”
“Listen, it will work. And the best part is, the crappy writers who have no chance of ever getting published will more or less help us pay the big-name writers to keep drawing in those crappy writers. It’s a win-win situation.”
“You really think writers will fall for that?”
“Of course. Writers are stupid.”
***
An old adage is that money flows to the writer. What does this mean, exactly? Well, it means whatever you want it to mean. Some think that it means they shouldn’t submit to markets that don’t pay them. Others think they shouldn’t submit to markets that pay only half a cent a word or less. Still others think it means they should never enter contests that require a monetary fee.
A few weeks back Nick Mamatas did this eloquent post about the different markets for short stories. The breakdown is basically how people in the different genres view things. In literary circles, there’s nothing wrong with submitting to journals that pay only copies, as those journals are oftentimes highly regarded. In the horror/sf field, however, journals that pay only copies or (if online) exposure are looked down upon considerably. I blame outfits like the HWA and SFWA for this line of thought. Just because a market pays 5 cents a word does not necessarily make it a “pro” magazine. Take, for example, my rant awhile back on a particular magazine that, while paying 5 cents a word, has a hideous website and apparently takes about three years to reply to some of their submissions. As far as I’m concerned, they can keep their 5 cents.
But what about contests? I’ve never seen anything wrong with submitting to them. Only there are a lot of contests out there, and you can’t submit to every one … unless you’re a millionaire and don’t mind paying out ten or twenty bucks a pop. Plus, some journals’ contests offer a one-year subscription with the entry fee, or an issue, or at least something the writer gets in return, which is nice, though there is the argument that they do it just so they can get their subscription numbers up. Whatever. The point is if you are going to submit to a contest that makes you pay some kind of entry fee, make sure your story is the very best it can be (which you should do every time you submit anywhere, of course, but this time around you are laying down hard-earned cash, so be certain you know that particular market well).
So in that case, some money is flowing away from the writer, but if that writer is able to place in the contest, a lot of money is coming back to him or her. Or not. That’s just the game. You never know.
Now what about just a regular magazine? No contest or anything. They pay extremely well, and they are “highly regarded.” Catch is, you have to pay an entry fee to submit to them. How much, you ask. Well, first let’s talk about American Short Fiction. They are indeed a “highly regarded” journal. But to submit to them, they require a fee of $2.00. Okay, that’s kind of cheesy, but as one person pointed out to me recently, that’s about how much it would cost to mail a story to them via the post, so it sort of evens out. Okay, I can see that. Makes sense to me. And really, when you think about it, $2.00 isn’t that much.
So how much is too much?
How about — and this number is right off the top of my head — $20.00?
If you’re thinking nobody would be insane enough to pay that, you would be wrong. There’s this journal named Narrative, you see. There are “the leading online publisher of first-rank fiction, nonfiction, and poetry. A nonprofit organization, Narrative is dedicated to advancing the literary arts in the digital age by supporting the finest writing talent and encouraging readership around the world and across generations. Our online library of new literature by celebrated authors and by the best new and emerging writers is available for free.”
As the Church Lady would say, Well isn’t that special.
Thing is, to submit to this wonderful journal, it will cost you exactly 20 bones. Don’t believe me, check out their guidelines. Be careful, though. If you sign up for an account, you automatically get put on their mailing list. I apparently did this a long time ago (I think I may have submitted to one of their contests), because I keep getting e-mails from them. And when you click on that barely visible link to unsubscribe, it takes you to a page that doesn’t really show you how to unsubscribe. So then you keep getting e-mails. Plus, according to this, they are even kind enough to sell their mailing list, so you can get even more e-mails about things you don’t need. Isn’t that nice of them?
Anyway, I love the Internet. Nothing can be kept from people anymore. Everyone has a Google Alert set up for their name or book or magazine, so when someone else writes about it, they know. This happens to me sometimes on Twitter. I’ll make some random comment and someone somehow involved with whatever will respond. It’s great. Here’s what I tweeted last week:
That was three days ago. There has been recent activity on their Twitter account since then. Seems I’m being ignored … though, to be honest, it’s really none of my business. Fact is, I don’t really care about Narrative. They can charge writers as much as they want for a reading fee. If writers are dumb enough to keep paying it, whatever. Sure, they’re a non-profit, and according to this, they’re a non-profit that made over $200,000 in 2007. Makes me want to start a non-profit.
I’m sure people will defend them, just as I’m sure there will be people who will hate them. It’s nothing new. It’s happened before and it will happen again. Again, my stance is I don’t care. Like I said, I made a random tweet and someone from Narrative took it upon themselves to respond. Not only that, the response was an attempt to justify an obscene cost to each and every writer … unless you’re very well known; that’s still up in the air whether you have to pay a fee then. See, my issue is, if you’re going to steal from people, acknowledge it. Don’t try to act like it’s okay, because it’s not.
So what have we learned from all this? I don’t know about you, but I’ve learned that I still cannot figure out a way to unsubscribe from their mailing list. Doesn’t matter anyway, I guess. Even if I did figure it out, there’s a good chance they’ve already sold my address to somebody else, which means I might as well save myself the time and energy and delete my e-mail account and create a new one.
Thanks, Narrative. You’re the best.
I saw this going on via Twitter as I’m following both you and Narrative. I haven’t had a lot of dealings with Narrative. I have been on their website, and read a few things (strange… I didn’t have to pay anything). The quality of content on their site is really very good. I submitted to their ’30 Below’ contest for younger writers (didn’t win a place, though), which cost me about £13. More than I would usually pay, but the reputation of the magazine and the big money prize tempted me in. I got a month’s free reading. I don’t like the idea of reading fees, and what you’ve talked about in this post does raise suspicions. Interesting post – thanks for sharing.
You don’t have to pay anything to view their content, from what I understand. Or at least you SHOULDN’T. But to do so you need to create an account, which puts you on their mailing list. And I’m sure the quality of the work published is good, but for $20 reading fees, you’d think writers would get a personal reply or at least some feedback on why their stories didn’t work for them, rather than a form letter … though I’m sure not EVERYBODY gets a form letter.
Good post, Robert. Narrative’s been shady for a while now.
Here are more links to posts about their practices:
http://htmlgiant.com/web-journals/narrative-magazine-is-edited-by-george-w-bush/
http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/narrative-magazine-the-gold-standard-of-online-publications-wants-5-to-read-your-work/
http://htmlgiant.com/web-journals/2007-form-990-narrative-magazine/
http://www.wetasphalt.com/?q=node/311
http://artsandpalaver.blogspot.com/2008/08/did-tom-jenks-and-carol-edgarian.html
Good one!
Just a note on “pro” magazines and the professional associations like SFWA and HWA. These orgs base their vision of pro only on money and various other elements (circulation, frequency of publication) for the simple reason that they aren’t in the aesthetics business. A number of self-published people have fumed over the years that all the money they make from donations for their blog stories should count, but…why? The point of joining one of these orgs is to be able to sic their grievance committees or lawyers on publishers for breaching contract, bouncing checks, etc. So someone making money from direct donations has nobody to sue. Poets, who generally sell poems as filler for $5 or less have nobody to sue either. People who contract with lulu.com have nobody to sue either.
“Pro” doesn’t mean “good” or “respected” or “impressive”—it means “worth barking it if they don’t pay up.”
I like that last part a lot, Nick.
Admittedly, I don’t know much about the SFWA, but I’ve known a lot of people in the HWA, and while they may have changed things recently, from what I remember it seemed to be a bunch of back and forth bitching on the message boards (not to mention the usual look-at-me-I’m-published-here stuff). Kind of like the Shocklines message boards, only you have to pay a yearly membership fee.
That’s not to say I don’t see the benefit of writer’s organizations, because they do have their benefits. Just some more so than others.
Great stuff, Jason. Thanks for all the links!
Reading fee. pssshhhht.
If you pay a fee, you should be receiving a product or service. If they aren’t giving editorial advice, they shouldn’t be charging money–I don’t give a **** if they are a non-profit.
Is it to benefit writers? That may be the intention–but, as has been pointed out ad nauseum this year: being listed with a “good” magazine does not necessarily help you sell more stories in the future.
Is it to benefit literature in general? That, too, may be the intention–but, then, you’re forcing payment from the very people you’re trying to help: underpaid content producers.
Museums charge visitors, not artists. Theaters charge patrons, not actors. Newspapers charge readers, not journalists. I can’t think of a single business model–for profit or non–that charges the supplier. Or, in this case, charges all potential suppliers, but only pays the one it picks to deliver services.
(Audition fees? I-only-need-one-worker-today-but-I’ll-read-your-resume-for-a-sawbuck deals? Those just sound like internet scams, don’t they?)
It does look like they pay well; but charging writers to pay other writers yet giving consumers the content for free just seems dumb. It feels upside down. It feels like a cannibalistic business model. No, not even that–it feels like auto cannibalism–digesting your own flesh to grow more flesh, all for the benefit of spectators who want to watch some sick mother****er gnawing on his own arm.
Amen, Robert. I don’t know which is worse – charging $20 for a writer (who most likely won’t get in since they have an acceptance rate of less than 1%) or paying them that money. As much as they publish great writing, I find the whole thing kind of disgusting. You’ll never see my work in Narrative, I can guarantee you that. Thanks for posting this up.
Plus, even though I’ve heard that Narrative publishes good work–I haven’t read much of it, tbh–there are also a thousand other places that do too, so avoiding one market isn’t doing a huge disservice to yourself if you don’t agree with its practices.
I think all writers should care about things like this, because ultimately it can affect all of us. There are so many scams and traps out there aimed at writers–and there are so many wannabe writers who are so desperate for publication that they will always fall for them–that I think we all need to be extra vigilant. Allowing one publication or scam to continue makes it “okay” for others to pop up–If Narrative gets away with this, it sets a precedent.
Of course, aside from being vocal and spreading the word, there isn’t much anyone can do about something like Narrative, but writers are already paid so little that we can’t afford not to care.
Ultimately, I think it’s a problem of respect. I feel that few people really respect writers, partly because anyone can start up a blog and be a “writer.” If anyone can do it, why should people respect the craft or the profession? Of course the difference between Joe Schmoe setting up a blog and a skilled author who spends time, effort and soul on her writing is huge, but many don’t see that (although many do). From a publication’s perspective, writers who are willing to work for negative cash flow will always be around. “Real” writers who can and do make a living on their work sit around and let this happen, because I think sometimes we don’t respect ourselves enough.
I really think anyone who wants to make a genuine living–or at least get some money for their work–needs to be vocal about this, because the only way pubs will stop abusing writers is when we stop LETTING them abuse us.
Seems to me that if they had a +$200,000 year in 06 (or any year, for that matter) that they should no longer be able to claim non-profit status. . .but whatever…
Non-profit only means that after you pay everyone, anything that is left over is either plowed back into the company or invested on behalf of the company. Doesn’t matter how much they make. Although $200,000 gross income is huge for an online venture. That NEA grant of 10K really is small potatoes to them. I wonder why they bothered.