|
11/6/2009 9:50:53 PM
|
Jbarney
Posts 91
|
Hey, I thought I would report my first rejection letter. I got it back this week. Felt great. I already sorta asked this in a different post, but how often do others get stories rejected out of order? The first story I wrote and sent into Asimov's "Gone In A Flash" is apparently still out there. The 2nd story I sent in was the one that I got the rejection slip for. Does this happen often? Sorry to ask such a basic question, but I thought some people here might be able to help. Thanks in advance.
Jason
|
|
11/7/2009 6:11:52 PM
|
Madison Bridgen
Posts 338
|
I could tell you, but I haven't gotten either a rejection or an acceptance back yet. 
--
We are currently living in the Dinosaurs' post-apocalyptic world.
|
|
11/7/2009 8:52:01 PM
|
Bill Moonroe
Posts 4528
|
Was the one that you got the rejection for submitted to the one of the Big Three not owned by Dell? That one is famous for its FTL responses.
--
"A thagizer? What's that do? Hey, what's this button for? Uh-oh. Sorry about that, man. It'll grow back, right?"
|
|
11/8/2009 10:34:44 AM
|
Jbarney
Posts 91
|
Both of the stories that I sent in were to Asimovs. I sent in "Gone in A Flash" in late August and I still have not heard back from them. I sent in "From Above" in mid August and got the rejection slip about a week ago now. So I thought I would ask others....does this sort of thing happen often? Or should I be concerned that Asimovs never got the "Gone In A Flash"?
|
|
11/8/2009 8:10:20 PM
|
WPreston
Posts 1310
|
You shouldn't have sent them—or anyone—two stories. One at a time, which means waiting for each rejection.
They moved their offices, so it may be that the stratification of your slushed stories ended up out of sequence.
--
http://wmpreston.blogspot.com
|
|
11/8/2009 9:30:28 PM
|
Bill Moonroe
Posts 4528
|
WPreston wrote:
You shouldn't have sent them—or anyone—two stories. One at a time, which means waiting for each rejection.
They moved their offices, so it may be that the stratification of your slushed stories ended up out of sequence.
That's not the advice TCO would give.
--
"A thagizer? What's that do? Hey, what's this button for? Uh-oh. Sorry about that, man. It'll grow back, right?"
|
|
11/8/2009 9:35:33 PM
|
Jbarney
Posts 91
|
Good point. I guess I never thought that even professional writers would wait on one story before sending the next to the very same magazine. This is a learning process....I am just now researching the other magazines enough to be familiar with their manuscript guidelines. The etiquette of sending one magazine only one story at a time seems like common sense now that you point it out. Thanks
|
|
11/8/2009 9:37:18 PM
|
Jbarney
Posts 91
|
Bill Moonroe wrote:
WPreston wrote: You shouldn't have sent them—or anyone—two stories. One at a time, which means waiting for each rejection.
They moved their offices, so it may be that the stratification of your slushed stories ended up out of sequence. That's not the advice TCO would give.
Forgive me, TCO?
|
|
11/8/2009 9:51:11 PM
|
Bill Moonroe
Posts 4528
|
TCO.
He wasn't that bad, when the gin wasn't doing the talking.
--
"A thagizer? What's that do? Hey, what's this button for? Uh-oh. Sorry about that, man. It'll grow back, right?"
|
|
11/8/2009 11:37:03 PM
|
alastair_mayer
Posts 465
|
WPreston wrote:
You shouldn't have sent them—or anyone—two stories. One at a time, which means waiting for each rejection.
They moved their offices, so it may be that the stratification of your slushed stories ended up out of sequence.
I've heard both Sheila and Stan (at Analog) remark that that's not an inviolable rule, but you should wait at least four weeks between subs. Mind, that was over a year ago, things may have changed since then.
Mind, the thread linked above (TCO') seems to confuse multiple vs simultaneous submissions. Simultaneous subs means sending it out to more than one editor simultaneously. That is a definite no-no with short fiction. Multiple subs is sending more than one story to the same editor before hearing back on the previous one. It's a no-no to stuff them in the same envelope, it may be persmissable (as mentioned above) to spread them out over a few weeks.
edited by alastair_mayer on 11/8/2009
(late) edit to add: My above comment about what I've heard from Sheila and Stand could be misconstrued to imply that Sheila suggests waiting four weeks between subs. It would be better read as:
"I've heard both Sheila and Stan (at Analog) remark that that [multiple submissions] is not an inviolable rule. [stop]. I think I've heard Stan say (but can't cite specifics) that you should wait a few weeks between subs. Sheila has explicitly said that (four weeks) is not her position. She is okay with multiple submissions. (See the thread on multiple submissions at: http://www.asimovs.com/aspnet_forum/messages.aspx?TopicID=3782 )
edited by alastair_mayer on 7/15/2010
--
- Alastair
|
|
11/9/2009 9:55:55 PM
|
WPreston
Posts 1310
|
alastair_mayer wrote:
Simultaneous subs means sending it out to more than one editor simultaneously. That is a definite no-no with short fiction.
While it's certainly the case with Asimov's (and most other magazines/journals), a fair number of publications do allow "simul-subs." Perhaps none in the sf world, but I also submit work to non-sf mags, and duotrope.com has helped me locate places that do take simul-subs. (This allows me to receive even more rejections . . . ) The etiquette there, Jason, is to inform the publications that you've also submitted elsewhere and, should your piece be accepted, to inform the other publications of that acceptance.
--
http://wmpreston.blogspot.com
|
|
1/9/2010 10:01:17 AM
|
DLDouglas
Posts 29
|
Got my first rejection! (Novel) After only a week! She said "Not for me, but thanks for the look". Now only about 30 more submissions to go....
--
www.dldouglas.webs.com
|
|
1/9/2010 6:48:39 PM
|
Hugh C. Howey
Posts 157
|
DLDouglas wrote:
Got my first rejection! (Novel) After only a week! She said "Not for me, but thanks for the look". Now only about 30 more submissions to go....
It took an entire week?! Not bad. I had my first rejection while I was sending out my third query.
--
www.hughhowey.com
|
|
1/11/2010 6:37:55 AM
|
DLDouglas
Posts 29
|
I've sent out about seven queries now. It's a pain in the neck, I have to create a new Word query document custom for each agent I submit to as an attachment along with sample chapters, while juggling a page open to the publishers and another page for my draft letter e-mail. I am trying to do four or five a week but it's hard finding the time. I notice that out of about 42 agent names listed on QueryTracker.net for the specs I typed in about a third of them I wind up discounting for various reasons (not open to new submissions, etc.). I estimate that when this is done I could be submitting to as many as 30 or so agents.
I do have a question. While researching the task of finding an agent all the advice says (from books on the subject of various ages) that 10% is the normal cut an agent should get, and if they demand anything more you should be suspicious. But lately I see that many do ask for 15%, so is 15 the "new" 10? Should I accept 15% as reasonable?
--
www.dldouglas.webs.com
|
|
1/12/2010 6:28:07 PM
|
Hugh C. Howey
Posts 157
|
15% seems high to me.
Are you hoping to publish with a big-time house like Tor et al? If you think an agent will land you a deal like that, they probably deserve the 15%. If you think your book is more likely to land with a mid-to-small publisher ... well in that case I wouldn't be looking for an agent at all.
The problem with the query process is the author needs to be armed with an honest and objective opinion of their own work, which is friggin' impossible. And 30 submissions is not an ungodly amount. Keep it up, keep tweaking the query, keep editing the book, keep sending it out to beta readers, start working on the next book, etc...
--
www.hughhowey.com
|
|
1/12/2010 10:33:29 PM
|
alastair_mayer
Posts 465
|
DLDouglas wrote:
I do have a question. While researching the task of finding an agent all the advice says (from books on the subject of various ages) that 10% is the normal cut an agent should get, and if they demand anything more you should be suspicious. But lately I see that many do ask for 15%, so is 15 the "new" 10? Should I accept 15% as reasonable?
As far as I know -- and it's all hearsay, I don't have an agent -- 15% has been the new ten for years. You might still find an agent that only takes ten -- but compare what costs they charge back to you vs the 15 percenters (and how agressively they'll market foreign rights, options, etc, etc.). The advice given to me was to wait until I got an offer before getting an agent -- and that a good agent should be able to negotiate enough of an increase of that offer to justify their commission.
--
- Alastair
|
|
1/12/2010 11:20:19 PM
|
Tom Purdom
Posts 867
|
I don't have an agent either but I know the switch to fifteen percent took place a number of years ago. It was discussed in the SFWA publicatons at the time.
|
|
1/12/2010 11:35:14 PM
|
DLDouglas
Posts 29
|
alastair_mayer wrote:
The advice given to me was to wait until I got an offer before getting an agent -- and that a good agent should be able to negotiate enough of an increase of that offer to justify their commission.
I heard to NOT contact publishers until you get an agent FIRST, that only agents can get publishers to look at your manuscript. But then I also heard it the other way around, so I will also submit to publishers so long as it doesn't totally nuke my prospects of getting a deal.
--
www.dldouglas.webs.com
|
|
pages:
1 |
|---|
