# On Submitting, a Question



## darknite_johanne (Jun 30, 2010)

Okay here's a quick Q about submitting. On submitting do you submit to the bigger companies where you have a higher chance of being rejected, or do you submit on smaller companies where you have a higher chance of being accepted? which is it?

or do you go submit to every company you know at the same time?


I was thinking of submitting my graphic novel soon, but I can't decide If I'd go for Dark Horse or Image comics right away or I'd go for smaller ones like Viper comics.

Anyway If you don't know anything about submitting on comic books, I'm still interested on knowing how you plan on submitting.


----------



## Loulou (Jun 30, 2010)

I submit where I think is right for the piece, be it aiming 'high' with some top-end lit mag or paper, or 'low' with some new non-paying ezine. I've no snobbery when it comes to submitting work, but it does pay to reasearch what they want, and how. Like some won't accept multiple subs, so then you can't send the story anywhere else until you get a response. Some will. Different places want different formatting, some accept email submissions, some only snail mail, some pay, many don't. Depends what you want, but be sure to give yourself all the information.

I've got lucky at all ends of the spectrum, been in a couple of national UK mags and featured in small websites or magazines that I like. Aim high, aim low, just be sure to aim.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 30, 2010)

Like the hot girl says,  you're looking for the home that fits.

Beyond that, why not start at the top and work down?  Mike C. has a piece about the "pyramid" of writing success you might find interesting.

Another consideration--unless comics work different from books, you can be querying like EVERYBODY, see where that leads.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 30, 2010)

Start at the top and work your way down.

If you are submitting to more than one place at a time, always let the publishers know this when you forward your submission. Also, check their guidelines - as noted above, some of them will not accept simultaneous submissions, so if you want to submit to them you'll have to hold off on submitting to anyone else.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 30, 2010)

> Start at the top and work your way down.



That's been my approach to live in general.
Not that I planned it that way.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 30, 2010)

Loulou said:


> I've got lucky at all ends of the spectrum, been in a couple of national UK mags and featured in small websites or magazines that I like.



I don't know how much luck has to do with it. How about excellent work and persistence?


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 30, 2010)

Luck actually has a great deal to do with success in writing, or any of the arts.   Excellence and persistence go proverbially unrewarded.

This is actually a good thing for aspiring writers to know, but the entire industry that works of writers spends a lot of time denying it.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 30, 2010)

> Also, check their guidelines - as noted above, some of them will not  accept simultaneous submissions



Screw 'em.  It's absolutely none of their business who you show your wares to.  

And DEFINITELY not at the query stage


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 30, 2010)

lin said:


> Luck actually has a great deal to do with success in writing, or any of the arts. Excellence and persistence go proverbially unrewarded.
> 
> This is actually a good thing for aspiring writers to know, but the entire industry that works of writers spends a lot of time denying it.



I believe the (para)phrase goes: "You can't win the lottery with a basebal ticket."


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 30, 2010)

Well, there's a phrase for everything and sometimes they're kind of flaky.   And sometimes they have absolutely nothing to do with  the point at hand.

Which was:  Luck is of extreme significance in writing success and it's good to keep that in mind.   

Or you can run around trying to explain "Twilght" until your butt drags the ground and wonder why it makes no sense.  People in the arts know the importance of luck.  If you don't, consider paying attention.

(This is probably why that person with the success in getting things published said she was "lucky" before being corrected)


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 30, 2010)

Lin, my point was, hard work and persistance do not go unrewarded.  It's harder to get lucky with a pile of crap than with a Brilliant-cut diamond.

I never said luck does not play a role.  It plays an enormous role.  But even Twlight is still enormously more palatable than most of the crap that _doesn't_ get through the filter.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 30, 2010)

lin said:


> Screw 'em.  It's absolutely none of their business who you show your wares to.
> 
> And DEFINITELY not at the query stage


 
This is terrible advice.  If you submit to a simultaneous submission to a publisher who doesn't accept simultaneous submissions, then you are unprofessional. If you don't like publishers who don't accept simultaneous submissions, then don't submit to them.  If you do submit, and they accept, only to find out that you've already sold it elsewhere, you look like an amateur at best, and a dishonest person at worst.  And editors and publishers will remember you.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> Luck actually has a great deal to do with success in writing, or any of the arts.   Excellence and persistence go proverbially unrewarded.
> 
> This is actually a good thing for aspiring writers to know, but the entire industry that works of writers spends a lot of time denying it.



Of course, luck has something to do with it. But as someone who is very familiar with Loulou's writing and with the considerable effort she puts into getting published, I'm saying that in her case, excellence and persistence have paid off. More so than just luck. I was addressing Loulou specifically, and just giving her the props  she deserves -- if you don't mind.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

Yeah, publishers sit around comparing their blacklists and tend to hate writers who actually get published.

The idea that this is unprofessional, much less "dishonest" is absurd.  It's the code that the industry wants to see people buy into and gets reinforced by industry shills like Writers Digest.

In fact, the idea that they would say "we wll only look at a vendor's work if they promise not to show it to anybody else until we make a decision at some unspecified time, which we might even notify you of" is what's unprofessional.  It would even, in less disfunctional industries (meaning pretty much any industry other than Hollywood) be seen as restraint of trade and in some cases would be illegal.

As as dishonest, what the hell is so dishonest about it?  Why do they have the right to determine this?  There is no point in playing by somebody else's rules, especally people who treat you like crap.

As a courtesy in certain cases, I might grant an exclusive look for a specified time.  But to tell the truth, I'm doing that less and less.  I'm sick of some jerkoff sitting on something for six months, not responding about it, then remembering it when |I got to the trouble of getting through their phone traps.   There is no reason for it to take months to read anything.   I've heard of work being lost at agencies for THREE YEARS.

Make your own rules, stick to them, modify them as you get more experience.  Don't think you are bound by whatever wish list some dork dreams up.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

> Lin, my point was, hard work and persistance do not go unrewarded.



Yes, as a matter of fact, they very, very frequently do.  If you were unaware of this, I understand.  But now you know better.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

A couple more points on luck.  First of all, being talented is lucky.  You don't work for it and you don't deserve it.

Second, you could be an extremely talented and skilled painter who works very hard doing Peter Max type work, or classical tableaux after Gerricault or some such...and you're out of luck because that stuff if out of fashion.  Or you could be the main guy who does birdshit spatters just when that general gesture takes off.  Lucky you.

Some working painters figure out that they didn't sell the canvas they really needed to pay their rent this month because it's great work, or they put 500 hours into it instead of 5...but because it matched somebody's couch.  So you get to pay the rent and have a beer because somebody had a blue couch instead of red one.  

These are realities.   They aren't the realities you see in the writing magazines or all the little wannabes parroting on the net,  where people want to think if they try harder they'll get "good"   or that if you buy enough books on how to write you'll suddenly find the magic potion.

It's not to say that persistence isn't necessary, nor that "quality" (if you can figure out what that is) isn't worth striving for.  
But it's something I mention here because it came up.

The whole slide into "well the filters mostly work" is beside the point, a slide into the stock kneejerks.  In point of fact (and certainly my point) was that Twilight was a very lucky happening.  Quality and persistence had absolutely nothing to do with it.

And... you CAN win the lottery with a lottery ticket.  If you're lucky.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 1, 2010)

Lin, I know you like to imagine that most people on the net are some sort of starry-eyed, reality-blind dreamers, but just because someone thinks you're spreading on the pessimist-sauce a little thick, it doesn't make them some naive child with no idea how the world works.  Keep that in mind.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 1, 2010)

Yes, lin -- luck is a factor. Right place, right time and all that. No kidding.


----------



## Sam (Jul 1, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> Lin, my point was, hard work and persistance do not go unrewarded.



Sorry -- what? Are you kidding me! I know about a dozen extremely talented musicians who are living off benefits and scrambling to make ends meet. They've been doing gigs for twenty-plus years and haven't made it anywhere. All the while, no-talented hacks the likes of Miley Cyrus can make millions because her father had one hit. In an ideal world, hard work pays off. In this world, it's not what you do, it's who you know. Do you think Cecelia Ahern, daughter of former Irish Taoiseach Bertie, had to spend years trying to find a publisher? Not on your life, Ilasir. Her father's sway had them lining up on the doorstep. 

The world doesn't work like that, unfortunately.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 1, 2010)

Correction: "Do not always". Sorry for the confusion, but Lin's comment was suggesting that it's almost _never_ rewarded, and yet I know several published authors who got there by working their behinds off. To imply that these people didn't get there by hard work and perseverence, but only because they got luck, is extremely insulting.


----------



## Sam (Jul 1, 2010)

Point taken, but hard work is not the main factor in getting noticed. If it were, all those extremely talented people would be published, and people like Meyer would be on benefits. Hard work will get you so far, but that last step -- the one where a publisher snaps you up -- is as much about luck as anything. The luck of what mood the publisher is in when s/he reads your manuscript. The luck of your manuscript getting the attention it deserves by being at the top of the pile. The reality is that it's out of your hands at that point, and all the hard work means nothing to a publisher. Ultimately, it comes down to luck. 

Persistence is just continually resubmitting when you've been rejected.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 1, 2010)

You need both luck and talent/skill, but the better the piece, the more lucky you have the chance to be.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> The idea that this is unprofessional, much less "dishonest" is absurd. .


 
You sound like a naive amateur, Lin.  Which you may well be, but that's not much of an excuse. It is most definitely unprofessional, and may also be dishonest if the author is aware of the guidelines and ignores them.

If I find that an author submitting to me has ignored my guidelines on simultaneous submissions, I certainly will not entertain future submissions from that author.  I have no intention of wasting my time considering a work and possibly making an offer for it, only to find that the rights have already been sold in the meantime.  There are plenty of submissions that do follow the guidelines.

If you ignore the guidelines you come across as a rank amateur, or a semi-illiterate who can't comprehend simple instructions.  Neither impression does you a service.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

Well, naivete is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm hardly an amateur.  And my ways of dealings with things have been forged over decades of making a living selling what I write.

And that doesn't make me dishonest.  And sure as hell doesn't make me "illiterate"  (duh).     And it doesn't mean I can't read instructions (obviously).  It means I don't accept instructions as law.So you're an editor?  

Well, then that would explain your attitude that you want things done your way and don't much give a shit about the other side of the fence.  And anybody who disagrees is a naive illiterate amateur.  Understandable.
But not the way I tend to do things.   

When editors start getting some coustesy and professionalism and get efficient enough to read sometbing in less than a year, etc.  it might be worth considering what they regard to be rules.

As I mentioned, a lot of this sort of practice would be illegal in real industries, rather than the disfunctional plantation mentality of the literary/industrial complex.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

> Lin, I know you like to imagine that most people on the net are some  sort of starry-eyed, reality-blind dreamers, but just because someone  thinks you're spreading on the pessimist-sauce a little thick, it  doesn't make them some naive child with no idea how the world works.   Keep that in mind.



The idea that I would keep any of your wool in my mind is not just insulting, it's scary.  You don't "know" anything about what I think or imagine.    I consider YOU to be a reality-blind dreamer who advises people on selling serious work based on your experience screwing around with poetry, yes.

And there is nothing "pessimistic" about what I said....you're just seeing it that way due to your own limitations.



> Lin's comment was suggesting


No.  The fact that you read something into what I say does not mean that I suggested it, just that you aren't up to it.  Try to keep THAT in mind.

And please don't bother to be all insulted on behalf of people who actually sell things.  If you knew any of them, you'd probably find that they agree with me.

I just don't understand what you get out of doing these things.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> .So you're an editor?
> 
> Well, then that would explain your attitude that you want things done your way and don't much give a shit about the other side of the fence.  And anybody who disagrees is a naive illiterate amateur.  Understandable.


 
I turn things around very quickly, and on the rare occasion when I can't I let the author know so that they can shop the work around elsewhere and not have it tied up.  I'm not just an editor, but also a writer who earns income by selling what I write, so I understand both sides of the equation. I treat authors professionally and expect them to behave professionally, and when I'm submitting something as an author that is what I do. I have little use for authors with your attitude.  If you've already established yourself and make a living writing, then you're in a much better position than a writer just starting out, which is the impression I got from the original post in this thread.  Your advice is horrible advice for a new author to take to heart. You're welcome to your opinion, and I don't intend to debate it further. I'll simply say that an author should conduct themselves as professionally as possible, particularly starting out. It will serve one better in the long run.


----------



## Loulou (Jul 1, 2010)

JosephB said:


> I don't know how much luck has to do with it. How about excellent work and persistence?


 
Thanks Mr B.  And you do have a fair point.  I do work hard and am persisent to the point of irritation probably.  I know you are, and a good few other writers here.  I reckon we make our own luck.  We've to put ourselves in the right place, lodge ourselves firmly in the right moment, and sleep wi- sorry, um, be nice to the right people.  (Joking, seriously, never been on the casting couch for a magazine slot...)  Luck has been known to launch mediocre talent - most books I pick up verify this - and that's annoying when we read so much great stuff that's never recognised.  But luck will never make anyone read a mediocre book and sit without words for a while and think they just read something really really special.  That's talent.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jul 1, 2010)

darknite_johanne said:


> Okay here's a quick Q about submitting. On submitting do you submit to the bigger companies where you have a higher chance of being rejected, or do you submit on smaller companies where you have a higher chance of being accepted? which is it?


 
I believe shooting for larger markets first is the way to go. But I am not sure that you have a 'better' chance of being accepted by smaller publishers.

Sure, smaller publishers get fewer submissions, but they also tend to publish fewer works. The deal with going for larger publishers first is that they generally offer larger advances, better distribution (among other things), and result in better sales potential/more readership.

One could of course logically argue that if one goes by 'submitting to larger markets first, and then work down to the smaller'...that the really good works will have already been accepted by the larger markets, leaving lesser quality for the smaller ones to pick from.

One fact remains, that far more works are submitted to publishers than could ever fit into their publishing schedules. Some really good works are bound to get passed on by everyone. 

Niche markets are a component here as well. The better the match with a publisher, the better the chance for a work to be accepted for publication.

And I do believe that a little luck plays a part in finding a publisher, or a little bad luck may keep a work from being accepted by a market. But in order to even _have_ a chance where luck can play a part, one has to complete a project, revise and edit it to the absolute best product one can produce, and submit it to appropriate markets.

Terry


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

> I'll simply say that an author should conduct themselves as  professionally as possible, particularly starting out.



You really never got what I was talking about because you wanted to do the canned scream.

If editors acted professionally, and didn't try to apply restraints of trade that would be illegal in real businesses, writers wouldn't be a loath to go along with it.  

I make my policies really clear to everybody I deal with, and keep my word (even to the lackadaisacal scuzz behind the desks)

Your calling me unprofessional, dishonest and illiterate just really kind of points up the kind of people and atttitudes writers have to deal with.

Your boohooing about reading a work then finding out somebody else bought it is just heart-rending and anybody who's had books get sidelined by some jerkoff for six months might get out their violin.   My suggestion would be the sort of thing buyers in the real world learn:  you snooze, you lose.  

Writers have their shit WAY together compared to editors and agency readers.

My message to new writers is a healthy one: don't blindly follow the dictates of the industry.  Make your own policies that you can live with.  

And LouLou.... I would say (in fact did say) that talent IS luck.   I don't think you were selling yourself short to say you were lucky to find homes for your writing.  We all are lucky to get picked up.  I think you're just being realistic, based on your experience actually selling things.


----------



## Loulou (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> And LouLou.... I would say (in fact did say) that talent IS luck. I don't think you were selling yourself short to say you were lucky to find homes for your writing. We all are lucky to get picked up. I think you're just being realistic, based on your experience actually selling things.


 
Lin, dear, I think certain talents are indeed luck - like marketing, selling, the 'gift of the gab.'

I do, however, believe writing talent (just simple writing, not any of the selling) is born.  Might be down to genetics, which could be called luck (or not, depending.)  Someone usually can or can't write.  It's then what a writer does with this ability, how hard they persist, their dedication, passion, ambition, and yes that is 'making our own luck.'


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

This is all just an idle comment I made about the importance of luck in the arts.

But I think you'd have to say that being born talented is a bit of luck.   If there's some way you could have worked to acheive it, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Does anybody realize how lucky a writer is to have English as his or her native language?   
To be living in countries with free, vital markets?

I know several very good writers here on Isla who are trying to come to grips with the fact that Mexico or Norway are not very good places to try to make it as a writer.  

And, to stress this again:  the matching sofa.  Editors may SAY, and even think that they are filters for exquisite quality and all that. But in reality, they pick up what they like, what fits in the next issue, etc.  

There are actually a lot of reasons this is a valuable awareness.  One might be simply to keep ego in perspective.
On the flip side of that, you see a lot of young writers crushed by rejections.  They think they suck, are getting caught on the wrong side of the "good filter".   When actually it's possible that all that's happening is they are submitting blue paintings to a guy with a red sofa.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 1, 2010)

Lin:

You're welcome to continue to be wrong regarding editors v. authors. I see no benefit in discussing it with you further.

On the point of English as a native language, I agree that it gives an author a tremendous advantage. English-speaking markets are lucrative, and for some reason many people don't seem interested in translations of novels from others languages.  Not many people in the U.S. are familiar with a name like Gabriel Garcia Marquez, much less an author like Roberto Bolano. It is unfortunate.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

I very much appreciate your permission to be wrong.   Should that happen, I'll take advantage of it.  
But unfortunately, you declaring me wrong doesn't make it true.   I realize that editors tend to get attitudes like that. 

And paint a rose on your ass for being a wonderful, considerate, timely editor or whatever nameless entity you claim to be in charge of.  One swallow, of course, doesn't make a summer.  Even if true seen from anywhere other than your own head.

In fact, it's a very messed-up industry that abuses aspirants and has been getting by with incredibly sloppy models and ethics for a long time.

And a writer needs to develop his or her own models and ethics, not just take the self-serving bullshit of the industry and it's cheerleaders and swallow it whole.


----------



## Baron (Jul 1, 2010)

Mainstream publishing has gone the way of the music industry.  From a time when it was populated by people who were genuinely interested in their product is has become the abode of accountants who view everything through the results on the calculator.  There are a few exceptions to this, like Faber and Faber, who still run on traditional and ethical lines but these are few.

The best advice offered in this thread is to research the publishers you're submitting to and find out what their policies and ethics are.  Most of the mainstream have their submission requirements published on their websites.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

Yes.
But I would say again that those "requirements" are their dream list.  You have your own wish list.   Would you rather act according to your own best lights, or somebody else's?

I'll say again (and figure steerpike will again fail to get it)  that I act courteosly and ethically...but according to MY code, not what somebody wants it to be.  Not requirments that are barely even legal


----------



## vangoghsear (Jul 1, 2010)

*Stay on topic please.  Everyone please refrain from personal attacks.*

I think that the best advice came early in this thread, try and find a good fit for your writing and submit to them.  Within that guideline (a good fit) I would say start at the top and work down.


----------



## darknite_johanne (Jul 1, 2010)

wow, I was surprised this site went to  more than 30 posts in less than a day. Your exchanges proved to be very educational. I have an exhaustive list right here and only one so far that is asking for an exclusivity in their submission requirements. 

when luck plays a part then, like an editor had an aversion to cab drivers that day, and you manage to submit a story about it, then it wouldn't hurt to resubmit to the same company again wouldn't it?


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 1, 2010)

Baron said:


> Mainstream publishing has gone the way of the music industry.  From a time when it was populated by people who were genuinely interested in their product is has become the abode of accountants who view everything through the results on the calculator.  There are a few exceptions to this, like Faber and Faber, who still run on traditional and ethical lines but these are few.
> 
> The best advice offered in this thread is to research the publishers you're submitting to and find out what their policies and ethics are.  Most of the mainstream have their submission requirements published on their websites.


 
Yes.  It has become a commodity, as opposed to an art. At least with respect to the publishers you are talking about. Most of them could give two figs for the artistic merit of a work, so long as it will sell. Researching the publishers is important, because it keeps you from wasting your time. Once the research is done, there's no reason not to start at the top and move down from there.


----------



## vangoghsear (Jul 1, 2010)

> and you manage to submit a story about it, then it wouldn't hurt to  resubmit to the same company again wouldn't it?



Absolutely.  Once you have a connection, a working relationship established with an editor, you should use that when appropriate.  This connection can get you past elimination levels that you may otherwise have to go through.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

Let me explain something else here.
Johanne is asking about a book.  Actually a graphic novel, which is a whole different system of companies and submissions.  Beancounters and NYU lit major chicks in charge of sorting the slush would sneer at Dark Horse, but they are lords of their domain.
He knows to check their submission pages and ask around the comix ghetto.  

He's not asking about submitting deathlss verse to some journal, which is, I suspect, where the discussion slipped to.

He's not going to do something stupid.  I'd suggest he take a wider look than what you read about and chart his course.

And the best clue from this thread is what LouLou said: find the place that loves you.  
He has the additional advantage/handicap of having a cool story that is very much out of the general mold.  He needs to be looking for the special receptor site.   He could end up at Scholastic.

It's not helpful to start yapping about simulsubs at the initital query level.  Hell, query everybody.  It's when you start getting some interest that you need to start thinking.  

Do you just send your stuff off for an excluive view with no time frame, nothing said?   I don't.  I talk to them and work out terms of how long they can sit on something without getting back to me.  You are dealing with people quite extremely capable of just forgetting something for a year, or indefinitely.  And that isn't "wrong" as our furface mews...it's demonstrable fact.

So what if somebody won't nail down?  They want an exclusive, open-ended option without paying for it.   Comes down to how much you want it.
I just did exactly that with an agent I REALLY wanted for a special project--powerful and well-positioned.  So I sat for four months with no word, despite a discreet email or two.  Finally I just blew her off (and immediately received a "Your work's wonderful but not for us, good luck" mail)
But here's what I'm saying.     
That was MY decision.  Not theirs--which is what Writers Digest and cats like steerpike want you to believe.
You can walk off if you want.  And if you don't agree different, you're not bound by any dreamsheets of the publishers and agents.  

And here's one other little thing you don't see discussed--mostly because everybody trumpets the internet gossip and "rules" they hear about third hand--but it doesn't kill anybody to read something and lose it.  Especially not a partial.   Here's one reason to think that:  rights auctions.

They don't even want you to know there are such things.  But in fact there are.  And publishers read a MS diligently, knowing that they might not land the book if they don't bid high enough.  So it's not like it beggars their kids or buggers their mums.

The economy, in fact, is an auction.   And what they want is to keep you from getting the highest bid.  And since they want to operate under no time frame, they want a setup where they can't lose.

The "requirements" keep you from seeking the best price for your work.  You deal with that the best way you an figure out.  But I'm saying do it your way, accept the opportunity and responsibility for it...not what they want you to think is some unwritten law.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

I think that by "resubmit" you mean sending the same story to the same company again, Johanne?

Don't do it.  It's a pet peeve among agents and publishers and they go on and on about it.   A few months ago I heard four agents swapping stories of pests who come up with sneaky ways to try to get past their protetion and show them the same story again.  Notice that they have installed protections.


----------



## vangoghsear (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> I think that by "resubmit" you mean sending the same story to the same company again, Johanne?
> 
> Don't do it.


I agree with this completely.  I took it to mean he had a piece published by the company already.

Another suggestion would be to keep track of personal notes on rejection slips.  I once sold a manuscript to a publisher that had rejected one of my plays, but added a personalized, handwritten paragraph explaining how it wasn't quite what they wanted.  I submitted something along the lines she suggested and they bought it.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

God, there's just more valuable than a "our couch is actually kind of teal" missives.   And we get so little info like that.

That's one reason I used to like writing for Hustler.  Instead of the "ddn't grow on me like a fine wine" crapola, they'd say, "Do this, that and the other thing at 3200 words and we'd want it."   You could make your own decision to do it or not.  (Seeing my work as art, not commodity, I always figured out a way to make the changes the editors suggested)


----------



## vangoghsear (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> That's one reason I used to like writing for Hustler.  Instead of the "ddn't grow on me like a fine wine" crapola, they'd say, "Do this, that and the other thing at 3200 words and we'd want it."   You could make your own decision to do it or not.  (Seeing my work as art, not commodity, I always figured out a way to make the changes the editors suggested)


The fact that it was a handwritten note of some length told me what I wanted to know:  they thought I could write and liked it enough to comment.  The comment was a good one too and steered me directly to what they were looking for to fill out their catalog, and I happened to already have written such a piece.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

Nice piece of luck.

Ooops, I mean genius, sweat and tears.


----------



## vangoghsear (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> Nice piece of luck.
> 
> Ooops, I mean genius, sweat and tears.


Little of both actually.  Right place at the right time (luck), right piece for the right time (skill).  I think if my original submission sucked, I wouldn't have been given the note urging me for another submission.


----------

