I’m a lurker. I frequent several forums nowadays, but only post at WotF. And I’ve noticed an odd trend.
Once in a while a newbie shows up and asks others what their rejection-to-sale ratio is. They’re looking to see if they’re on track. They’re looking for averages to compare themselves too.
But the replies end up giving them erroneous statistics.
Firstly, there’s not much one can gauge from other people’s numbers. Every writer is different (how many times have you seen that statement?). Some are better at gauging which market their stories are fit for, some have higher skill sets than others, some blossom early, others take decades to get anywhere. Just because Author A sold the second short story they ever wrote does not at all make it the norm. So that newbie probably shouldn’t be comparing themselves to others-- especially others they know nothing about. If these people work completely differently than you, and have an entirely different skill set, how does their experience apply to you?
Secondly, some of the repliers “bend the stats” (not all, of course). There are a number of “Oh, I sold my first story on the fourth try out” or “most of my sold stories I never got any rejections on.” Wow, looks like we’ve got super-talented people on our hands, no? Maybe that newbie should feel bad about their 20 rejection slips.
Except we’re not getting the whole story here.
Luckily there’s always someone who replies to the thread to point this out, so I can stay in lurker mode.
Some of these quick-sellers have links to their sales lists that you can visit. Upon investigation it’s easy to discover why they’ve got such high sales-to-rejects ratios. They’re selling to non-paying or token markets with acceptance rates of around 80% (Duotrope percentages).
Now, I don’t begrudge people who sub to these markets. They’re not for me-- for me it seems the only reward for publishing in a non-paying market is an ego-stroke, as I’m not being fiscally compensated and the “publication credit” isn’t worth the cover letter it might be printed on. And I don’t really need my ego stroked today. But, non-paying and token markets are more likely to give feed-back if they reject you, which can be very useful to newbies.
But the point is, if the newbie who started the thread at the forum sees these high acceptance ratios, and they’ve got 6 rejections from Asimov’s and 6 from Analog and 8 from Fantasy and Science Fiction, they might say to themselves “hmm, I must not be any good, because all of these people sold straight away, and I can’t.”
They might be discouraged by faulty stats, and that’s just not fair.
In fact, I’d say that a higher number of rejections indicates a more ambitious writer, rather than a poor writer.
Who knows, the newbie might be a much better writer than aforementioned “Author A,” but because they’re sending manuscripts to a market that’s got a less than 2% acceptance rate and Author A is sending to a market that’s 80%, it looks like Author A is more successful. Of course, Author A might just be short-changing themself, and really they could be published in much better markets if they were willing to endure a few more rejections.
The point is, these stats need qualifiers. Or the initial question needs a qualifier. Perhaps asking “What is your sale-to-rejection ratio in pro-paying markets” might be a better way to start off. But the newbies don’t know that. They’re just learning.
And it falls to the people who have been at this for a while not to lead them astray.
So, the moral is full disclosure. Any sales are awesome, be proud, but be specific. Bending the stats doesn’t help anyone.
Example of such a thread:
Example of Newbies that need guidance, not led astray:
~Marina
P.S. Alternate viewpoints always welcome.
P.P.S. I took Gwendolyn Clare’s advice and sent some more stories out, in lieu of waiting until I hear about WotF Q2. Thanks for the kick in the pants, girl!
Rejections with goal of 100: 5
This is kind of tangential, but:
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how people are so afraid of rejection. For example, I work for an arts organization that gives money to writers. People call me and tell me how demoralizing it is to get rejections and how, consequently, they self-publish. Then they get angry because the organization I work for refuses to recognize self-published authors as "professional." I've received fifty rejections in the last four months, but it's all a game to me: one, there's the matter of "fit," which is unpredictable; and two, there's the matter of experience, which--like in Dungeons and Dragons--you don't gather without losing a few Hit Points. I have no interest in self-publishing, or in publishing with token markets, either, because I have respect for the gate keeper. I have seen the difference between fiction that has been paid for by editors and fiction that has not been (or that has been underpaid), and it is significant.
The fact of the matter is, in today's genre fiction market, you can read tons of great fiction, online, for free. If someone doesn't want to pay you for fiction they will consequently not be paid for themselves (except by donations, e.g. Strange Horizons and Clarkesworld), then obviously, you need to work on your writing. But at the moment, I think there's a lot of people rebelling against the gatekeepers and believing their work ought to be published; that something in the model "isn't working."
That's crap, in my opinion. Capitalism works pretty well in the fiction market, as it does mostly everywhere else. There are a lot of words on the Internet; many are better than others. If you want to be a writer, take your lumps and learn from them, I say. My fingers had to get callouses before I could be a good guitar player, too!
-bn
Good article. I agree in that it makes little sense to send to non-pro paying markets.
ReplyDeleteBen- I've got great respect for the gate-keepers too. Free fiction can be good, but there's a reason pro markets that have been around for a while have the reps they do- they find what's good, making the reader's job easier.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Capitalism argument is exactly why I hold that professional authors don't get published solely because of their name. Some people whine that newbies are edged out because names sell magazines, so regardless of what they write the "name" is always going to be picked over someone new. Sure, name-brand authors sell, but it's because those names provide *good product.* If a new writer produces a better story, they aren't going to be rejected in favor of a name-brand produced story that's mediocre.
Michael- Thanks! I think even semi-pro is often worth it--once pro-level markets have been exhausted in the submission process--especially when one has no publications under their belt. It's all a mater of what you want to get out of publication. But no, there's not much I can get out of lower markets (professionally speaking) besides a pat on the back.
For my own reporting purposes, I don't count it as a sale until I've collected at least that pro 5 cents a word. Semi-pro markets, though, I call that 'advertising for which I get paid'. So there's glory to be had there as well.
ReplyDelete