Theoretically, I have a list of short story markets to which I submit in order of how much they pay. (In practice, I have a list of short story markets to which I submit in order of whether they let me submit in email. Baen's Universe is top of both lists. In practice, also, I hardly ever write short stories and I'm hardly ever sufficiently satisfied with the ones I do to send them out, so this all stays theoretical.)
Anyway, for what it's worth, this start-with-the-best-paying- markets thing, I'm sure this is what somebody at some point told me to do, or I read it somewhere, and the reason for it is that the best paying markets deserve the first crack at the good stuff, and lower paying markets only deserve it if the better paying ones pass on it, and this rewards markets that pay more. (The other good thing about it is that you don't have to think about where to send anything, because there's an order, though you still have to check closed markets and anthologies.)
You clearly don't follow this theory, as I see a story up there submitted to The New Yorker after Talebones.
As Eric Flint thinks that people don't write short fiction because it doesn't make economic sense, and Charlie Stross has recently said that short fiction is for advertising and experimenting, I wondered whether you're not thinking about money at all, or whether the difference between a couple of hundred dollars and twenty dollars doesn't mean anything, or what principle you're working on when you select a market.
(Also, bonus question: What's scary and mainstream about F&SF?)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2006-08-17 08:02 pm (UTC)Anyway, for what it's worth, this start-with-the-best-paying- markets thing, I'm sure this is what somebody at some point told me to do, or I read it somewhere, and the reason for it is that the best paying markets deserve the first crack at the good stuff, and lower paying markets only deserve it if the better paying ones pass on it, and this rewards markets that pay more. (The other good thing about it is that you don't have to think about where to send anything, because there's an order, though you still have to check closed markets and anthologies.)
You clearly don't follow this theory, as I see a story up there submitted to The New Yorker after Talebones.
As Eric Flint thinks that people don't write short fiction because it doesn't make economic sense, and Charlie Stross has recently said that short fiction is for advertising and experimenting, I wondered whether you're not thinking about money at all, or whether the difference between a couple of hundred dollars and twenty dollars doesn't mean anything, or what principle you're working on when you select a market.
(Also, bonus question: What's scary and mainstream about F&SF?)