Surprise, Surprise

The Guardian reports that there's a self-published short-story collection among the finalists of the Frank O'Connor International Short Story Prize: Mary Rochford's Gilded Shadows. You can read a sample and buy her book here.

When In Doubt Stop Global Warming

Edward Nawotka at Bloomberg.com has an article covering Bob Miller's new "HarperCollins Studio," as everyone is calling the proposed experiment in nontraditional book-sales (i.e. stiffing the authors on their advances by offering profit- sharing, not buying back books from book stores, and bundling hardcover, nonfiction books with e-book versions of the same titles.)  

Here are some highlights:

"Returns date back to the Depression, when publishers implemented the practice as a way to ensure that bookstores would continue stocking new books.

Today, publishers have convinced retailers that stacks of books piled high in the aisles will attract customers and spawn bestsellers. It's a leaky theory posing little risk for booksellers. If the books don't sell, they're only out the cost of shipping and handling the returns.

``Let's face it, returns are bad for everyone, and things have to change,'' Miller said in a telephone interview last month. ``The only way to make it happen was to start something entirely from scratch.''

My favorite part of the article is the part where The Bob Miller Project appears to be about saving the environment by reducing global warming (no more trucks shipping books back and forth, no more unread books in the landfill), rather than about the dollar in the publisher's pocket. Galley Cat seems to have bought the old green publishing argument hook, line and sinker.  It's actually a brilliant marketing ploy because who's going to argue that books aren't to blame for boiling the environment.  (Certainly not me.)

Another Editor Responds

As requested by a commenter to this post from a few days ago, editor Howard Junker sent in the following response:

"Thanks for hungering for a response from me.

Actually, I was not alerted to your post until I did my usual Technorati search of blog mentions. When I tried to comment on your post, no window opened.

So, with regard to Roger D. Coleman's story, I published it because I liked it, which is the criterion I use for every piece. I found it strange in many ways, especially in its phrasing.

I chose to publish it as submitted, which is what many writers seem to want, because I did not think I could intervene in a small way without ruining the overall effect.

Yet I thought it only fair to let the reader know that this was a special case,an unedited story...for a reason.

I admire Coleman's courage and tenacity. Although his mind has been struck a grievous blow, he soldiers on. He continues to publish-some six or seven stories in the past year. Other editors obviously like his stuff, although I don't know whether they edit it or not.

Best regards,
Howard Junker"

I'm amazed that the "special snowflakes" on this blog (as we've been called) demand a response and get one.  Ask and you shall receive.  Also, I always end up kind of liking the charming Mr. Junker in the end, don't you?

Blah, Blah, Blah

VQR's Ted Genoways stopped by on LROD's comment section yesterday to join the discussion. He wants us to read his stories at VQR by "all by young writers" (as if that is going to be a selling point for us old shoes), and then to explain to him how they represent "one type of sensibility," which is an ongoing accusation about literary magazines in general. Feel free to read his stories and comment, if you wish.  Or read these stories instead.

Here's what Ted said:

"The thing that provokes me from my silence, however, is the obvious fact that you criticize the fiction from VQR while evidencing the fact that you haven't read a word of it.

So let me help. Here is a healthy dose of fiction, a half dozen stories, from recent issues--all of by young writers. You want to complain? Let's be specific:

http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2007/winter/alarcon-circus/
http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2007/spring/habila-hotel-malogo/
http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2007/summer/kamlani-zanzibar/
http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2007/fall/roncagliolo-internal-affairs/
http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2008/winter/johnson-last-dead/
http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2008/spring/snyder-13th-egg/

When you finish reading, I hope you will explain to me how these stories represent "one type of sensibility." Of course, I guess they represent MY one sensibility, but if you think there's a sameness here, I'd very much like to hear your description of what it is--not in generalities, but in the specifics of what appears in our pages."

What Were You People Thinking?

According to the Gawksters, Penguin Books co-hosted a project in which 1,500 people on the Internet attempted to write a novel, but it turned out bad.  The project is called A Million Penguins, which brings to mind my own novel-writing angst times a million and makes my head pop off.  Anyway, the novel has been roundly declared "terrible," which, duh, we could have told you.  Here's an excerpt from the opening paragraph:

"The deep waters, black as ink, began to swell and recede into an uncertain distance. A gray ominous mist obscured the horizon. The ocean expanse seemed to darken in disapproval. Crashing tides sounded groans of agonized discontent. The ocean pulsed with a frightening, vital force. Although hard to imagine, life existed beneath. It's infinite underbelly was teeming with life, a monstrous collection of finned, tentacled, toxic, and slimy parts...."

Blech!  But I guess they didn't spend 10 years of their precious life revising like I did.  

Anyway, hey, editors at Penguin: next time you want to publish a high-concept novel, don't waste your time on gimmicks; contact me instead.  I've got a really good literary book waiting for you.  And what could be better than successfully publishing the most rejected writer around?  Seriously.  That's interesting, isn't it?  Okay, never mind.

Short Stories Alive and Well--Online

As our friend over at BookFox posted, storySouth has announced its Million Writers Award Notable Short Stories of 2007.  For all of you disheartened at the state of the short story, it's worth a trip over to read the links of some of the finest short fiction published on the web.  

VQR Apology...Sort Of

After posting some questionable insider editorial comments displaying a less-than-professional attitude toward submitting writers on its blog, VQR apologized for the offense.  Having stirred up hornets everywhere, what else could the lit mag editors do? The apology starts out so well:

"VQR wishes to apologize to any writers who took offense to our recent blog entries, in which we made public anonymized snippets from internal correspondence regarding our submissions. It seems obvious—and is regrettable—that some writers got the idea that VQR delights in belittling unsolicited submissions. Nothing could be further from the truth. This publication—and, indeed, its long-standing reputation—is built on a tradition of finding fine work by new writers amid the slush pile...."

The paragraph goes on to list all the well-known literati who have graced the pages of VQR But then quickly takes a turn toward blame of the unknown writer:

"In short, the tone of our blog post did not correctly represent our commitment to our authors. This is a disservice to our submitters, our readers, and our goals. However, I do think that the comments, if not their public airing, are a fair response to many of the submissions we receive and accurately reflect the righteous indignation that we often feel as readers. Too much of what we see these days strikes us as merely competent—well-crafted but passionless in its execution or, just as often, passionate only about the minor travails of the world of its author. No editor nor writer feels more strongly about the possibility of finding the universal in the small, but we also ravenously crave great writing that takes on big issues. Gutsy, fearless, hard-nosed writing. Writing that matters. Its absence makes us ill-tempered; it makes us question our enterprise. We work hard and want to see evidence of equal effort from writers. Such discussions, however, should be undertaken more thoughtfully than we have done thus far on the blog. I hope personally to rectify that situation and soon. Some writers have demanded to know why we have grown to feel such frustration toward our submitters. It’s a question worthy of a thoughtful answer—and will likely be as controversial as anything Waldo has said. But at least the discussion will center on what we consider the shortcomings of American writing, not a few comments meant to be private expressions of disappointment and frustration."

Oh, of course, it's the writers' fault for being shitty writers.  Should have known. You can read the full apology here.

A Sign of the Times? A Beginning of the End?

After a 10-year reign as king of books, Peter W. Olson has been pressured to step down as the CEO of Random House for falling short on profits.  Oh dear, my friends.  I fear the meaning of this for the future of books.  Perhaps we have come to the edge?  

Quote of the Day

Says Mr. Warren Adler in a comment over at Ward Six:

"Flush your rejections down the toilet. Above all do not let the bastards beat you down. I have survived five decades of rejections and most of the rejectors are now either drunks, dead, or in real estate."

Recession Hits Print Media

I just read several depression posts at The Write News, which evidences some downsizing in print media:

• The Telegraph is reporting that Reed Elsevier is planning to cut 1,000 jobs and sell its business information unit, including Variety and Publisher's Weekly
• The New York Times is planning to cut 100 jobs
• The L.A. Times is cutting 100 to 150 positions, and apparently the news was announced in this email memo

I don't think this bodes very well for anyone.

A Letter From Today's Mailbag

Dear Writer Rejected,

Your blog is compulsively readable, and more than that, gives consolation and catharsis to other lost souls afloat on a sea of obscurity.

There's one thing I've always wondered about small lit mags, and maybe you or one of your readers will have insight into this. I'm virtually unpublished (published one short story, a couple years ago, in a volume that no one seems to have read), but I seem to get a lot of what I'm calling "nibbles." (Fishing metaphor.) I've gotten a lot of xeroxed form-rejections, but also a number of (mostly electronic) rejections which are much harder to decipher. They will call me by name and refer to my story by name, and then say vaguely encouraging things about my writing along the lines of "well written but not for us." Some of them have gotten me quite excited because they imply that someone at the journal actually read portions of my story, maybe even (imagine!) the whole thing.

But this may not actually signify more than the versatility of the rejection letter in the age of email. After all, how hard can it be to generate a form rejection that inserts individual names and names of stories? I keep imagining that journals have different levels of form rejections, and that maybe I've made it to one of the higher levels--but I have no real evidence for this, at all.

For example, I sent a story in to the SQ love story contest. Below is the letter I got back this week. It assures me that my entry "received close attention and positive responses." And a (desperate) part of me wants to believe that, at the same time that another part of me is sure that this is a 100% form rejection that everyone who did not win the contest received. It's a nice rejection letter (much better than many) but I can't help feeling that they're being extra nice because I coughed up the $20 entry fee! 

By the way, It's very strange that Narrative took over Story Quarterly, and now runs it, but on a single site and in such a way that you simply cannot tell the difference between one journal and the other! Anyway, here's the letter:

Dear [Redacted],

Thank you for your entry in our recent Love Story
Contest. “[Redacted]” was carefully read and
considered by our editors in a very challenging
process of selecting winners and finalists from among
many strong entries. The judging involved many rounds
of reading, discussion, and decision making, in which
your entry received close attention and positive
responses. We regret that in the end “[Redacted]” was
not one of our winners this time. We’re very grateful
for your participation in the contest, and we hope
you’ll keep Narrative in mind for your work in the
future.

An announcement of the winning stories will soon go
out to the magazine’s readership, along with news of
future contests.

Again, many thanks for sending your work, and please
accept our best wishes.

Sincerely,

The Editors

*********************
Dude: It's natural to want to believe that every form letter is actually a personalized missive indicating that you're a good writer.  We've all held that misguided belief at one time or another; some of us for years.  But after you've been around a while, you get to know the difference between standard form and personalized rejection (not that the latter is much consolation). Here's a thought for you to mull today:  Just because the above is a form letter doesn't mean you're not a good writer. You probably are. But, sorry, Virginia, it is just a form letter.  Still, don't give up hope entirely. We haven't. Well, some of us have, but not all.  I haven't.  I still send my stories out.  And sometimes, when I really need to get published to make myself feel better, I just aim a little lower in terms of lit mag quality.  

Keep plugging, 

--W,R

Anyone else want to chime in?

Speaking of Gimmicks...

Since we've been on the topic of gimmicks and condescending editorial processes that should remain private, an anonymous reader sent this report in from the front. Looks like Howard Junker at Zyzzyva is at it again; this time, he is interested in fiction with a hook. Here are excerpts from the story, according to our anonymous spy:

"Alien Fusion," by Roger D. Coleman:

(from first paragraph):

"Bruce's "intended" canceled at the last minute due to Bruce's parental disapproval. Bruce decided to take the vacation by himself. He had made the reservation and could not get his money back. Besides, he thought to himself, I need a rest from my father's bank--where I work."

(couple paragraphs down)

"He went into the house, put down his squash racket. Dressed in his white trousers with his white corded sweater and threw his strong arm around his mother. (sic)
"Hello, Mom."
He hugger her (sic). His mother seemed tall with a good tan."

(penultimate paragraph):

"Bruce's parents were worried when they heard he met Butch. They were pleasantly surprised out (sic) was an attractive girl. They blessed the union and Bruce became the president of the bank (sic--no ending period)"

The submitter of this tidbit goes on to say: "The story goes on this way, awfully, for a few pages. Then Howard Junker puts in the footnote: RCD had a stroke but continues to write; this story is presented as submitted. He already "ages" rejections. After publishing this, in this form, I don't know how much more condescending he can get."

Remember Story Quarterly's Love Story Contest?

Remember how we weren't going to submit our love to SQ, which is hosted by Narrative Magazine, and we didn't? Well, Maud Newton did.  (Her friends Marie and a Alexi egged her on, she says, and she did it on the very last day possible, and she sent in an essay, not a story.)  

She won 2nd place.  Here are all the winners (not you):

First Place ($2,500) Elizabeth Stuckey-French Interview with a Moron
Second Place ($1,500) Maud Newton Conversations You Have at Twenty
Third Place ($750) Janet Burroway Blackout

Now they are stumping the new contest: 1st person story contest (essays welcome).  They must be raking in the dough to give it such big prizes, no?

Barf-o You, VQ

A commenter on this blog named PUC (thank you all for picking names; it makes the anonymice nest less confusing), found this delightful insight from Virginia Quarterly Review. It's a list of comments from their screening readers, which probably ought to have been left a private joke, but now appears on the VQR blog posted by Waldo Jaquith, as follows:

"Since I often get a laugh out of reading through some of the notes that our beleaguered readers provide for these particularly unfortunate submissions, it seems worthwhile to share them.  Here are some of my favorites:

• The emotional problems of clipping fingernails. Actually the best of his submissions.
  
• OK, I’m just going to say it. This writing is plain ugly.
  
• “Soon he fitted his body into mine like a puzzle piece.” NONONONONONONONONO!
  
• Planet of the Apes fan-fiction! Have we no standards?
  
• Why does the speaker’s wife only want babies from Chinese shacks? This is the craziest poem. And the scariest. I feel like we should the call the cops on this guy. (There should be a category called “Inappropriate to Humanity.”)
  
• Unpublished Faulkner. Should remain unpublished.
  
• I can’t enumerate all the ways in which this is horrible.....[more here, but I lost heart]
• This guy has either the best or the worst cover letter ever. As for the poem, barf-o."
  

Charming! (There are more comments from LROD readers in response to yesterday's post, if you are interested.)

Dude Sums it All Up

L.A. Poet, commenting on this blog, sums up the recent raging debate at LROD pretty nicely. Dude is sharp, no?  Dude-Einstein. Dude-Vinci.  Anyway, here's what it adds up to:

"Read over these posts, to my mind there are a few different issues being raised here:

* Academic journals sponsored and run by universities are not playing fair (or smart): if they have low circulation, there's no reason why they can't publish everything on the web, make the print copies an extra souvenir or sentimental type bonus or even stop print altogether; certainly pay their writers just as they pay the printers and make it a point that they do so or do not publish. Paying pro rates of $1/word or more is a drop in the bucket for them. If you can't pay, then stop publishing until you can! Make it a moral issue - fairness to the working writer. That the university can't stand exploiting writers. Combine with other struggling journals at other schools then if you can't get funding; but whatever you do, pay the writers. So pressure on universities to pay writers and improve distribution (or place it all on the web).

* Commercial magazines are lost on gimmicks and making the lowest common denominator even lower than it is. They largely ignore fiction or assign "cute" sound bite stories. So, pressure on the commercial editors to print more work of substance, especially fiction.

* Demands of exclusive submission are wrong and exploitative when they take months, even years, tying up work and coming with no response but form letters. Exclusivity should only be honored for paying journals that reply in a timely manner, so list out those journals that demand exclusive and don't pay or take unreasonable amounts of time, and state that no writer should follow the rule of exclusivity for them. Even The New Yorker is amiss here, what with waits of a year or more.

* Non-academic non-commercial magazines like Smokelong Quarterly can't pay, but they can have useful toehold for the struggling writer. So if they recognize the issues addressed here, maybe some kind of solidarity with all of these complaints?

* There is some kind of spoken or unspoken divide between academics and non-academics. Do some journals really prefer writers with MFAs, or even teachers as some posts contend? Maybe list out some contents of these journals and see. If true, call them on it. If false, take it back and shut up already.

* Agents today are mostly shallow and without taste, certainly without Amanda Urban level ambition. So why do we even need them? Pressure on publishers to look at unagented manuscripts?

* This blog is getting quite popular. Not an issue but how much longer can they keep ignoring what's being publicly stated here? The silence is deafening.

What I would do is list some names, maybe invite some to comment. I would amplify this. The Esquire examples were great. So is the example of AGNI. I'd love to see some response to this stuff. Call them to task, name some names. Let them defend their position (or consider changing it). Wonder if they would care to comment? After all, they're committed to literature. This is a big issue, raised in a high profile blog. How could they possibly refuse?"