GUEST POST: Jennifer Brissett Weighs in on the Writer Pay Rate Flap
Jennifer Marie Brissett is an MFA candidate at the Stonecoast Creative Writing program, where she concentrates in speculative fiction. Her short fiction can be found in Warrior Wisewoman 2 and The Future Fire. She has a bachelor’s degree in Interdisciplinary Engineering (Electrical Engineering with a concentration in Visual Art) from Boston University and once owned and operated a indie bookstore in Brooklyn, NY. Her site can be found at jennbrissett.com.
Brrr… did anyone else feel that chill? Well, I did. I haven’t been able to think about anything else since this whole Black Matrix flap started.
I’ve been reading the blog posts from Scalzi and Rachel Swirsky’s guest blog post on Jeff Vandermeer’s site and I must say that I’m more than a little disturbed by the whole thing. The chill I feel is the people at the pro level pulling up the ladder saying, “you stay down there, kid.” These major editors and authors with large clout slamming on a small non-pro market feels just wrong. I plain don’t understand why Scalzi is insulted by the pay rate that has nothing to do with him. He clearly would never submit to Black Matrix, but other new writers might. Writers like myself.
The speculative genres have an open door to new writers that mainstream fiction doesn’t have. That open door is provided by the semi-pro and non-paying markets, NOT the pro-rate ones. They play a role in the development of new writers. New writers have a chance to be recognized and develop. They often provide more feedback and encouragement rather than a form letter that arrives six months later, or even worse a rejection form email that comes back so fast that your computer is smoking from the speed of its arrival (makes you wonder if they even read your piece.)
I’m not a big name author. I’m just starting out. I have no connection with any of the parties involved in this discussion. I’m just a new writer who hopes to have a career in the genres. I began with Critters, then I took an online writing class, then I joined two writing groups. Now I’m in an MFA program. I’ve worked hard to improve my writing to the point where I got my first sale. It was to a semi-pro market. And I was thrilled. The amount I got from the story was enough to maybe buy a trade paperback book and Chinese take-out, but it was money from my writing. I’m proud of that. My story that was overlooked by the pro-markets went on to get some pretty good reviews from Analog, The Fix, and SF Crowsnest. I say this to say that the pros aren’t always right and, because of the smaller markets, they are also not the only game in town.
If it were left to editors like Rachel Swirsky there would be no new writers at all. Her market is a reprint, pro-rate market that–by her own admission–takes stories from only the pro-rate markets. She admits in her blog piece:
I could tell you lots of things about slush. I could tell you, for instance, that if you are submitting an unsold story to a reprint market and your name isn’t Tim Pratt or Greg Van Eekhout, you are not going to sell that story to me. Why? Because you’re competing with stories printed in the best magazines, chosen by the best editors in the business. If your story was ready to compete with top-level stuff, some other editor would have seen that before your story made it down the market list to find me. Could there be an exception? Sure. There are exceptions to everything. But so far, I haven’t found one to this rule.
So why does she have a slush pile??? It’s a waste of everyone’s time, including hers. I don’t get it. If it was advice that Swirsky wanted to offer about cover letters then maybe the thing to say was to put your five best market sales on it and leave it there.
And the silence on this is just too much. I know that people are scared to say anything to these bigwigs in the field. I guess I’m just stupid enough to do it (I prefer gutsy, but I digress.) These smaller non-paying, or low-paying markets play a critical part in the development of the speculative genres. They encourage new writers and give them a place to be heard. New writers are given a shot in these markets that they are often denied in the pro-rate markets. It’s the smaller, so called “crappy,” markets where the new voices are found.
BTW, calling a market “crappy” because they cannot pay SFWA pro-rates is downright rude. There are plenty of really great markets that pay semi-pro rates, token rates, and even nothing. I’ve run a business and I know how hard it is to keep things afloat when all you get in return for your efforts is love. It seems like a mean thing to say about someone’s efforts.
Related posts:
- Is It Over? The Writer’s Strike
- The Writer at Work
- Monday YouTube Bonus: Harlan Ellison Says Pay the Writer
- And the Greatest Living British Writer is…
- Ray Bradbury Speaks at Writer’s Symposium
Tagged with: guest post
Filed under: Books
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Gah! I don’t know what all the additional stuff is at the top of my post – mea culpa.
“After the facts were clarified, her opinion was apparently modified based on those facts to more accurately reflect reality.”
Philosophizing over the definition of truth will get you nowhere. Please cite exactly where Jenn says she doesn’t believe there’s a divide between pros and non-pros, and the pros aren’t “pulling” the ladder up.
I’ve Jenn that direct question twice, and I’ve yet to hear an answer.
“Others, however, continued to say what Scalzi was not, that writers, especially up-and-coming writers, would all be better off only submitting to Pro (or Semipro) publications.”
Who said this?
Johne: do you always put words in the mouths of your opponents?
I quoted Jenn repeatedly, more than once. I pointed out the untruths of her words and (1) she has replied that ”all she said” was not to lump all the non-pro markets as “crap” and (2) she has ignored everything else.
“to continue to bang on Jenn’s first post after subsequent ones displayed a changed opinion”
If you don’t want to put words in people’s mouths, then don’t put words in Jenn’s mouth. Nowhere has she said any such thing that would indicate she has changed her opinion on *anything* with the one exception being that she now acknowledges that not all semi-pro markets are “crap”. She has not said word one about any of her other untrue accusations, several people have pointed out to her that her untruths still stand, and her only response has been that this conversation is “over”, everything is “settled”, and that we ought to “move along”. That’s your response as well.
But I will note for those reading along who do *not* like putting words in people’s mouths, that Jenn never said anything that would lead anyone to believe that she has recanted all her other untruths.
And if what Jenn was saying is not actually true, and Jenn has somewhere magically recanted it without being visible to mortal, muggle, eyes, why is it that when you used all those adjectives you used to describe Jenn’s initial posts, that the word “untrue” never came up? Of the litany of descriptors you used, you said they were everything but you never said they were not true. If Jenn has already made clear that she acknowledges the falseness of her initial claims, why did you avoid calling them false yourself?
Because she didn’t.
“When I read Jenn’s post, while I didn’t agree with her tone and questioned her conclusions”
Really? You “questioned her conclusions”? Is that a round-about way of saying that Jenn wrote things that weren’t actually really true? Bush/Cheney swore up and down that there were WMD’s in Iraq. Do you “question their conclusions”, or can you man up and say they *weren’t true*?
See, here’s the deal. Jenn started out with a litany of accusations about people and the industry. All of them were wrong. She has since done nothing to address her untruths. Instead she has claimed that “all she said” was that the non-pro markets shouldn’t be lumped together as “crap”. Everything else, apparently, has become “unsaid” like in Orwell’s 1984 or something. And then she declared the discussion “over”, tucked tail and stopped posting.
The one thing I’ll give her credit for is she stopped posting. Because every time she posted, she dodged the truth. You, on the other hand, keep on posting, and every time you post, you make it hilariously clear that truth isn’t your priority, that your priority was to get the concessions you wanted. And what you wanted was an “out” for Ray Gun Revival so you could pay half a penny per word, or less, and not be lumped together with all the other “crap”. Once you got that sorted out, everything, and I mean everything, else just ceased to be relevant to you. You couldn’t care less what Jenn said that wasn’t true, and you couldn’t care less that Jenn never actually corrected all the untruths she said.
You simply wave it all away with your own assertion that she had a “changed opinion” that nullified everything, even though she specifically claimed later that “all she said” was that semi-pro markets shouldn’t be lumped together as “crap”. That’s all you cared about, so the rest of it didn’t happen as far as you’re concerned.
So, don’t put words into Jenn’s mouth. She made a litany of untrue claims about pro writers and pro markets, and the only thing she every had a changed opinion about was that not all semi-pro markets are “crap”.
Without naming names, for it is not my intent to pick a fight with the individuals holding these opinions, here are some representative quotes. None of them are ‘wrong,’ per se, but you might see where taken as a whole, there was room for a little clarification.
In this first one, note that this author has no use for anything less than a straight-up Pro market.
This is a nuanced post that creates a certain tone about the zines at the lower end of things.
The thing is, I get the theory, and understand the opinions. I don’t think less of the people for holding them. I’ve read variations of these sentiments countless times in various threads since John’s first post. I’ve read enough of them that when Jenn made her post, I understood where she was coming from. I can guess that she was reading many of the same comments that I was. This is why I balked at Greg’s insistence on defining what the ‘truth’ was. The truth is that there were enough people writing things that were skeptical of the value of the amateur and 4theluv publications that, well, some of us were looking for clarification.
Greg, for a great lover of truth, you certainly have an affinity for twisting words. When I asked about putting words in mouths, it was clearly a rhetorical question referring to all the words you were putting in mine.
I note that you give Jenn credit for stopping posting. It is difficult not to see you as anything but a bully whose primary interest was less about truth and more for the thrill of throwing your weight around. Unless, of course, I’ve misunderstood your motives and miscontrued your words as thoroughly as you have mine.
Johne, you were asked a direct question as to who said this:
“Others, however, continued to say what Scalzi was not, that writers, especially up-and-coming writers, would all be better off only submitting to Pro (or Semipro) publications.”
Not answering that question and “not naming names” only makes you a further laughing stock. Cite your sources. That’s what writers do.
Heck, Johne, I even asked you a direct question. Do you realized how dodgy you look by not answering them?
Greg is not twisting words here. He’s quoting things said by other by other people verbatim that were proven not to be true. Trying to further confound the argument and make yourself look like the victim only makes you look more the fool among people who do research the markets.
I compiled the quotes from this link:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/12/01/in-the-spirit-of-the-pulps-and-paying-even-less/
My interest is in the ideas from the authors and not who held them lest the authors in question think I have a grudge against them (and to be crystal clear, I have nothing against any of these writers).
Greg made a big hairy deal about uncovering ‘truth’without stopping to understand Jenn’s perspective, which was the truth as she understood it. If her perspective was based on invalid facts that have since been clarified, I’m less likely to sit in judgment on her and wonder why Greg is so quick to. Reading his rant against S.F. Murphy, and then Jenn, and then myself, it is difficult to see him as anything other than an old-fashioned internet troll acting the part of a bully. Perhaps he believes that he’s fighting the good fight, but he’s fighting it in a bad way, and the net result does nobody any favors. I don’t care for bullies and stood up for Jenn, whom I don’t know, because of the tone of the attacks. Truth is important, yes, but truth without love is brutality.
As it seems we won’t get out of this thread until the trolls bludgeon a confession out of somebody, I’ll give my own. I don’t agree with every single word that Jenn said. I never said I did. But by the same token, I did understand where she might have gotten her ideas from. I don’t think ‘Pro authors beat up on non-pro-rate-paying markets simply to remove the ability for non-pro authors the ability to get their “tokens” and keep them out of the pro markets.’ I don’t think ‘they’re pulling up the “ladders”.’ I don’t think it’s ever wise to tweak the Scalzi. I do think Jenn and Rachael achieved a consensus of sorts, and the list of publications was worth some misunderstanding. I’m glad Rachael was mature. I’m sorry so many others, including myself, have not always been.
Johne:
Jenn has not said anything to change her stance on the “pulling up ladders” issue, which is part of what Greg’s been about. That you seem to consider people who ask direct questions of others trolls is rather disconcerting.
The fact that you still did not cite your sources is even more so. As an editor you should know who holds what ideas, and if you’re worried about a grudge, you should be upfront an honest about not bearing one.
That you don’t seem willing to answer direct questions with upfront answers can damage you in the end.
Thanks, Johne.
BTW, the only thing I know about Raygun Revival is that y’all got caught up in some silliness where people tried to pull you from online archives because you were mistakenly identified as violating copyright on account of having used Asimov’s name or somesuch? I hope that got resolved.
FWIW, I don’t need sources. I just wanted to know whether the impression was still that I, Cat, Tobias, etc, thought SFWA pro status necessarily made a market superior to a non-SFWA pro market. Knowing Johne got those comments from the original Scalzi thread makes sense to me — a couple of the comments made me blink when I first read the thread, though they may not be the same ones he pointed out.
I know some of the original charges were never retracted, like the ladder-pulling and my alleged hostility to new writers, but I don’t know if that’s a big deal at this point. I think Jenn meant to imply she was not standing behind those charges when she said her main point was to defend the semi-pros. If she happened by here later and wanted to confirm that, it would be nice, but I understand why she may not return.
That’s why I’m asking John to cite things… if I know where he’s coming from instead of “not naming names,” I can try to take a different perspective and see the source of his arguement. I admit to being adamant about “citing sources” but that’s what happens when you’re the son of a writer and journalist.
Rachel, as far as I’m concerned all misunderstandings were cleared up long ago. You basically said that you didn’t mean to imply that all of the semi-pro markets were “crap.” I take you at your word.
I do think a few of the commenters on Scalzi’s first issue gave the definite impression that they felt any mag not paying pro rates was beneath their notice. And I can understand being taken aback by that–I certainly was.
But that’s kind of irrelevant here–the original post did not say “some people commenting on these entries” it pointed at the entries themselves. Which did not say what Jenn thought they said. Rather transparently so, as has been pointed out.
I think Jenn put up an ill-considered post in an unfortunately public place. The reaction left her feeling cornered, and Rachel has given her an escape route. I don’t blame her for taking it, and I think it might be to her benefit to be able to retreat, regroup, and reconsider.
I know this is very frustrating to those of us who are looking at the very obvious inaccuracies and untruths in the original post and seeing how they might mislead new writers in the future, but I strongly suspect Jenn isn’t in a place right now to deal with that. It may well be that if she attempted to deal with that right now, it would be in an unfortunate way. She’s better off calming down first, and spending some time thinking.
Maybe SF signal would consider asking someone to write a rebuttal–one that isn’t right down in comments, which not everyone reads? I don’t know. I don’t know the solution, but I think Jenn might really need to hide for a while before she’s ready to answer questions about whether she’s changed her mind.
Jenn, repeating that over and over again isn’t going to help. It won’t make it true, either.
Seriously, take a breather from comments here and once you have your balance back spend some time pondering why so many people don’t think the situation is resolved. It’s not–you would do well to work through why. But you can’t do it from where you’re at right now, it’s clear.
Johne: “I note that you give Jenn credit for stopping posting.”
Yeah, well, see below:
“It is difficult not to see you as anything but a bully whose primary interest was less about truth and more for the thrill of throwing your weight around. Unless, of course, I’ve misunderstood your motives and miscontrued your words as thoroughly as you have mine.”
Bully much yourself there Johne?
My motives are simple. Jenn made a litany of accusations: Pros like to “pull up the ladder” on non-pro writers. Pros like to keep non-pro writers “down”. pro markets don’t accept stories from non-pro writers. Pro markets will return submissions from non-pro writers without reading them.
None of them are true. And yet after having several people point out to her several times that they aren’t true, Jenn has never actually addressed any of these untruths. Nor have people like you.
Jenn: “Rachel, as far as I’m concerned all misunderstandings were cleared up long ago. You basically said that you didn’t mean to imply that all of the semi-pro markets were “crap.” I take you at your word”
All misunderstandings? Really? So, the only misunderstanding was whether Rachael implied that all semi-pro markets were “crap” or not? What about you making blanket statements about all pros wanting to ‘pull up the ladder’ on non-pros? Or you making blanket statemetns that pros like to keep non-pros “down”. Or that pro markets reject non-pro submissions without reading them? Or that pro markets require authors to acquire semi-pro credits before publishing them?
What’s hilarious, Jenn, is that you and Johne can say with a straight face that the ONLY misunderstanding was from Rachel, and that all the bad-mouthing you did in your original post somehow didn’t happen.
You talked a lot of crap about real people, and now you act as if it didn’t happen.
Hi, Rachel,
Yeah, that was the SFWA v. Scribd flap over Labor Day weekend in 2007. That was all ulimately resolved well, I think, for the most part. SFWA leadership changed during the next elections, Scribd improved their service, our docs were restored, and I made some cool new friends. I do feel sorry for the President of SFWA at the time – he was a good guy, and got caught up in something that wasn’t his doing.
And Rachel, I admit that I was a bit harsh on you in my orginal post. I was pretty angry and blind rage can be, well, blind. I assumed ill intent. I shouldn’t have. I don’t know you, so to assume ill meaning was inappropiate. I’m not sorry that I wrote the post, just the tone and the assumptions of your character.
And John, I sent this to you personally, but I think it’s worth saying here as well: Thank you for your comments on this post. You gentle chiding of me is deserved and accepted. Your wisdom and observations on this matter were (are) impeccable.
Wow.
Just wow.
Amazingly, Johne, Scalzi’s quote doesn’t say anything about all semi-pro or token payment or non-paying venues being crappy.
It says that there is no excuse for such venues paying writers a rate that would have been pathetic during the Great Depression.
If you were really taking Scalzi’s claim at face value, you would have been able to stop at the issue of pay rate. Instead, you spent the last week sending up flak about mentoring writers and other such nonsense.
Like I said, I’m amazed how easily “confused” some people are, especially when their confusion allows them to discuss and defend their own projects—while of course ignoring the real slagging and attacks on others—for more than a week.
I’m beginning to sense the problem. Johne, in a very real way, is semiliterate. He literally does not understand English sentences. For example, he cites this as a quote from someone who has no use for non-pro markets:
1) We have lesser teams to allow people the chance to practice and grow. In writing we have places for that called “critique groups” and “writing forums”. Looking at the non-paying and token, semi-pro mags handing out form rejections with no editorial advice… what does that teach? Nothing. What does getting accepted gain you? Well, for the semi-pros at least you know you don’t suck, but the rest is just confidence. Misplaced, mostly. There’s no point in showcasing crap. Get some feedback on it. Sppend time practicing. Take your rejections and keep on chugging. If I write something, and no one semi-pro or above will touch it, that says something to me: “This needs work.” I don’t take it to the lower levels for $20 bucks or some “exposure”. Noy everything is fit to be displayed. Them’s the facts, and there’s a lot of writers out there who need to suck it up.
Now, even ignoring that this quote contains the clause, “Well, for the semi-pros at least you know you don’t suck” (thus acknowledging that semi-pro venues publish work that does not suck) the commenter here is clearly simply taking issue with the claim (made explicitly by Johne in other parts of the thread) than bottom-tier publications are ways for authors to learn how to write. The commenter points out that they are generally not: form rejections teach nothing, and being accepted teaches nothing.
(One can also add that anyone can be an “editor” of a bottom-tier market, so what actual editorial skills or mentorship they can possibly provide would generally be extremely limited, but the commenter doesn’t.)
The other commenters were simply stating facts. Very tiny venues have few readers. Venues that do not pay do not pay. Nothing in those comments can be taken even remotely as the claim that all non-pro markets are crappy.
So we are left with Johne simply not being very familiar with the English language. Not a good thing for someone who claims to run a magazine in order to mentor new writers.
It’s all true, Nick. I think you were assuming I was smarter than I really am, and I freely admit it. They dont’ call me Cap’t ADD for nothing. If it appeared that I was floundering around trying to understand what the community stance was on pubs like ours based on the statements I’ve already quoted, I really was. I’ve already explained what my thought process was, and you have found it wanting. It is what it is.
I am no Machiavellian genius trying to curry favor for my own enrichment. I clearly don’t know how to make money via creative writing and I misunderstood those who are my literary betters. This isn’t snark, it isn’t sarcasm cleverly designed to sting you with a zinger, and it isn’t me playing the victim. I own it all.
‘I’m not sorry that I wrote the post’
Then you are an idiot. For the rest of your writing career that garbage will sit on the web, demonstrating that you are an idiot to anyone who Googles your name, and you can never take it back. The only way to mitigate that damage is to accept that the post was just plain wrong and to proffer a simple and sincere apology to the people you maligned. Instead you are still trying to justify your actions.
And just to add to the idiocy you are still apparently incapable of grasping that whilst editors will forgive just about anything short of ritual sacrifice of their firstborn if you give them a really good story, readers don’t and won’t cut you the same slack.
So Jenn, do you still believe that there is some divide between professional writers and those not yet in the pro markets, and do you beileve the pro writers and editors are trying to keep new writers out of what you consider the big leagues?
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
A very wise man once said, if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall in a pit.
I don’t see the point of jumping on Johne, myself. But what I am doing is not bullying Jen. Jen is someone who was trying to pick a fight and doing so without considering the consequences.
Jen made an inflammatory post that was completely inaccurate about the short fiction market and accused Scalzi and Rachel of insidious motives and behavior. Her bonafides for these claims was that she’s in an MFA program and has published stories, which means really it’s quite strange that she had the view of the market that she did, but I am assuming she held it out of ignorance, not malice. She also misinterpeted what these people were saying, though she is not the first to do so.
When it was first explained to her by people in the field that she was wrong, she didn’t listen much. But then she did eventually accept that Rachel was not trying to screw over new writers and sort of apologized to her. As far as I’m aware, she never apologized to Scalzi, nor did she ever correct her inaccurate statements about the short fiction market.
And that’s the problem, not just that Jen made a mistake. Because while “all misunderstandings” may have been cleared up for Jen, they were not all cleared up for other people. Other people in the thread were still wondering if her inaccurate claims about the short fiction market were true and if Scalzi was dumping on all semi-pro magazines, etc. Which is the only reason I entered into the conversation at all.
What is quite clear is that Jen is not going to acknowledge that her claims about the short fiction market were wrong, which I’m sorry, I’ve got little patience for. But I do think at this point people involved in the conversation have a better idea of things. I hope so. Beyond that, I have no interest in Jen.
To be fair, Kat, I asked for it. I knew what I was getting myself into, and did it anyway. I may not be altogether smart, but I will own what I did in my well-intentioned stupidity. I jumped in to defend Jenn because of the tenor of the responses made to her, ignoring the tenor of her original post, as well as subsequent posts. I think those are fair statements, and I don’t duck them just because it makes me look foolish in retrospect. Perhaps it was a case of chivalry getting in the way of responsibility. There’s more than enough blame to go around. I’m not above accepting mine.
I think people see a discussion that touches a nerve and get involved no matter how much of a nobody the original poster might be, and “for the luv” markets definitely touch a nerve.
Personally, I don’t think they’re a bad thing. Short fiction, if not totally dead, is coughing up blood and having a hard time focusing these days, so seeing the hobby markets pop up and attract newbie writers isn’t a shock. But to others who are pinning their hopes to the idea that there’s still life left in short fiction, they see these amateur/semi-pro magazines as devaluing their work. If there is an army of amateur writers out there willing to give it away for free, why would anyone want to pay for the good stuff… This is the Harlan Ellison argument, and it’s not necessarily wrong, just misplaced considering the state of the market.
The only thing I do take issue with is the idea that there are no semi-pro markets in any other genres. They are in EVERY genre, and in greater numbers than in SF or Mystery. The biggest concentration of “for the luv” markets are in Horror fiction and Lit fiction. Horror fiction pretty much died in the early 90′s and the only thing keeping it moving is the small press and “for the luv” markets. And seriously, you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting four or five semi-pro literary markets. These places exist to cater to MFA students who will graduate in debt, unable to get a job teaching, and with a head full of bad advice and a portfolio full of over-workshopped, dull writing that they’re desperate to “publish” in order to make themselves feel better about their decision to waste time and money by signing up for the biggest college degree scam of the past 40 years.
But that’s a different argument.
In the end, it all comes down to goals. What you want and how serious you are about what you do. These amateur markets that pay very little or nothing and have low standards for acceptance are going to either be irrelevant in a bio or count against you. If, however, all you want is the quick, orgasmic spurt of seminal satisfaction that comes with any acceptance, no matter how irrelevant, then go with the “for the luv” markets. My guess is eventually, once you’ve been at this for a while and realize how meaningless those “publication” credits actually are, you’ll think differently.
Or maybe not.