Wyndham

Here's a tip.

I have done editing work for a couple of ezines that "encourage new writers," and what I've learned is that many people interpret "encourage new writers" to mean, "we take anything." They figure it's a good place to get a first publication, so they submit some first draft that they've barely worked on, assuming they'll save the good stuff for Glimmer Train or the Georgia Review once they have a few publications to list in the cover letter.

I strongly suggest that writers of short stories check out the Writer's Market listings. You'll find out that even a magazine like Beginnings that publishes only unpublished writers receives over 400 submissions per month, of which they publish maybe 20 per issue, or 80 per year.

Most publications has limited space and therefore cannot possibly accept everything they get. Furthermore, I and my fellow assistant editors can pretty much tell when someone feels that the publication didn't warrant their best work, and we find it offensive. Consequently we are likely to be less appreciative of future submissions by that person, even if they try harder the next time.

Point being, when submitting to a publication that "encourages new writers" appreciate the fact that you will not be competing against Joyce Carol Oates and Sherman Alexie, but don't assume that this means that you shouldn't send your best work.

tina louise

Thank you for the frank and honest insight. I entirely agree that if any writing is worth doing, it is only worth doing well.
Namaste

__________________
Namaste

Nazareth

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I Dunno why you'd blacklist a writer if they try harder the next time? Good writing is good writing- As an editor I would think it your job to edit? (And to help a writer become better rather than just dismiss them) If the story is good- solid & marketable, Dunno why it'd be passed by for editing reasons. Used to be eidtors took great pains to do their job and help writers- Yeah- the writer gotta know some of his craft, but these writers are the ones paying your salary & keeping your piblication going- You make it sound as though they work for you- I spose it's your right to snub- but I wouldn't hire on an editor- (Yes- Hire on an editor - because in the end- you get paid off of what we write!) who took that attitude.

I should think it a priviledge to help new writers- but whatever.

Airborneguy

Even as a writer, I have to disagree with you. Not to mention, can you even fathom the pure crap they probably recieve? It is hard to understand when you are right on the fence of being a "good" writer, but they have to have a way to screen out, plain and simple, "crap". You know that lady who is pushing 350lbs, but she walks around in tight spandex-pants and a small tank top? That's half the writers out there, and they have no idea.

__________________

Wyndham

Actually my ezine will work with you to edit an "on the fence" piece, but we are the rare ones. We are also encouraged to make comments in our rejections, which is an added kindness that most publications will not give, and which, I might add, can become a tremendous burden because it means you have to read the entire piece even when you know from the first paragraph that it's not going anywhere.

Nazareth

My mistake- I wasn't considering the Real crappy writers- I took his comments to be directed toward marginals- it was the "even if they try harder" cvomment that made me suspect- which is why I posted what I did and backed it by stating the story might hold merit even though written badly.

Nice- not many do that these days (Most likely due to being under staffed which is a shame)

1 Question- If you run a story through Word- it would format & take care of alot of errors for those marginal stories wouldn't it?

Still though, I realize wading through lots of stuff can be tiring, but so aint most jobs when it comes right down to it.

Airborneguy

Word is good with spelling, but most of its grammar suggestions are wrong from my experience.

__________________

Wyndham

First let me make it clear that I am primarily a writer. I do the editing as volunteer work because I find that editing other people's work teaches me a lot about what to look for in my own writng.

When I submit my own work I do not expect an editor to fix my spelling and grammar (though I'm sure anyone would excuse one or two typos in a good piece of writing). I also don't expect them to reiterate what I should have already read in the guidelines, like maximum word count. And while it is sometimes difficult to determine just what a particular magazine is looking for, I certainly wouldn't send a romance to one of the highbrow literary journals. Yet people do this all the time. Perhaps because they have this inflated idea about their abilities as a writer and assume that they are so good that they don't have to follow the rules.

Furthermore, I think that by the time you start submitting your work, you should know at least the basics that you can pick up in any writer's magazine. Like show don't tell. Choose a POV and stick with it. Watch out for changes in tense. Sure, some of the best writing breaks all the rules, but you have to know the rules before you can decide when it works better to break them. Otherwise it is just bad writing. Worse, a lot of times it's lazy writing.

Nazareth

Alright- lemme ask this then- (Nothing to do with you or your publication you work for- as I was mistaken about why you declined some writers works)

What is an editor's job?

I've got books from old editors who bemoan the fact that editting simply isn't what it used to be- it used to be that writers did not for the most part have to worry about having everything perfect. And the editor worked very closely with the writer, helping them through the writing process, correcting things, even re-arranging segments and suggesting better angles (As they knew better what the market wanted). Now -- these old edtors point out -- it seems new editors can't be bothered and demand that the writers get everything practically perfect, and that their mind-set is that since the writer doesn't go to great pains to edit their work thoroughly- they just throw the work in the reject bin and move on until they find some that do fit the bill. They know that whereas there are thousands of new writers, that eventually they will find oine that they don't have to work hard to correct their work.

Perhaps they aught to change their titles to critiquers instead of editors? Because they certainly don't care to do the job they were trained to do anymore (for the most part)

AgaIN, this isn't directed toward your company as I don't know their policy- I'm basing this on numerous articles I've read about how editors have just so much to wade through that they filter out works based on grammar & whatnot & just dump the works in a bin when they run across their particular pet peeves - be it grammar mistakes, sentance lengths, use of certain words etc. They brag on and on about how they only look for the best and the most grammatically correct writers. Yet, oddly enough, time after time, I run across books (Best sellers mind you) where the writing is terrible, the grammar horrendous, and the book lacking in depth.

I'm beginning to think, that the editors whose booksa I spoke of are right & present day editors really don't like doing what they were trained to do & treat the writers more as though they were doing them a favour by deigning to look at their work.

There is the story of an old writer, (popular novelist of the time) who would go into seclusion, write, then bring a trunk load of loose papers to the editor (All out of order no less) and tell the editor to "Find the story within"

Now, that's dedicated editing!

A severe case to be sure- but the point the writer was bringing out was that in days of old, the editors would work with and even mentor promissing new writers- Guess thjem days be gone though.

I'm sure there are many many fine editors, however, from what I've run across in articles written by editors, it would seem there are also a growing number of 'editors' who just can't be bothred to ply their trade correctly anymore

Drzava

Good tips and all, but it's hard to take a poster with a gorilla in a bikini seriously


As for saving the best for later, I think that is mainly the fact that they want to refine their style and technique so their masterpiece is just perfect, not so much them just being lazy.

rashadow

Nazereth, thank you for putting words to something I have always believed. What exactly is the editors job if not to find promising work or a promising style or story and edit? Why are they constantly looking for work that has already been edited to death or grammatically perfect, no matter if it lacks substance (i've seen those "bestsellers" also). Why not take a chance on a writer that needs a little work and perhaps a little guidance. From what I was told, that's how editors used to do it...

I could be wrong, but even if that's not how it used to be done, then at least that's how it should be.

__________________
I think...therefore...

http://www.myspace.com/silenciobarnes

Wyndham

I would highly agree. I wish we could go back to the days when a Hemingway could submit a short story to a magazine and the editor would see the potential and work with him/her. As I mentioned earlier, my publication does that, and I really enjoy that part of it, but, in fact, that is just not the way it's done anymore, so there is no sense in lamenting.

The fact is, that you can't expect someone these days to find the diamond in the rough. It's got to be a finished product before you send it out.

As to why people don't do it anymore, in fairness, I bet editors these days (really first readers because most things don't even get to an editor) receive a lot more submissions than they did in the old days. I doubt that back then there were so many average Joes or Josephines who thought they could write. They were too busy doing other things.

Airborneguy

Also, take into account the proliferation of computers. Back in the day, not everyone had a typewriter, so the idea wouldn't occur to most people to write something down. Now, every Tom, Dick and Harry has a computer and the internet, which gives them the ability to submit to editors, magazines, etc., any time they want.

__________________

Wyndham

No need to get personal. That's a picture of me at the beach last year. I thought it showed me to my best advantage![/quote]