Monthly Archives: October 2008

40: Superficiality — an example from music

Lots of things are superficial. At times, it seems that everything that isn’t too deep to understand is too stupid to matter.

But there are degrees. To pick one typical example, not to pick on him except as an example, consider the music of Morton Gould: glib, superficial, utterly trivial. The work of someone quite bright, for whom composing came all too readily, who had an easy success.

This is quite different from music that’s serious, intensely conceived, just not of the highest quality. Considering only the ‘G’s, we have Gebel, Gernsheim, Goetz, ….

END

39: “Life will find a way”

“Life adapts, continues, and flourishes; it is not life itself that falls, only particular versions of it. Humans are busy endangering themselves and many other species in their suicidal plunge, but life itself has all the time in the world, and it will reassert itself in new forms when it is ready.”

(A.C. Grayling in New Scientist, 6 September 08, page 54)

38: Writing Short Stories: Paying v Non-Paying Markets

The following discussion occurred in the summer of 2008 in an on-line writers’ workshop sponsored by one of America’s leading literary journals. Participants are identified by code, because I don’t have permission to use their names. “A” is me, and “D” is the editor of the journal and leader of the workshop.

A: I just received an impassioned email from a fellow writer who says she will never, ever, submit to a non-paying market, whether or not she could use the money (a pittance, anyway, in most cases). Her point: Non-paying markets are full of inferior material you don’t want to be associated with, don’t give you exposure, can actually give you harmful exposure, are hardly ever read, are never reviewed or considered for awards, etc. — I don’t agree with her. There are certainly inferior markets, but I don’t know what pay/non-pay has to do with it. — Comments?

B: Your friend’s comment is not coming from an informed point of view. My guess is that she’s very new to the game. The truth is, most literary journals don’t pay anything. And it’s very difficult to get into any of them. if you limited yourself to only the paying markets, you might be missing other opportunities. Getting into any mid-tier journal is a coup, in my opinion.

C: There are some good non-paying journals, but if you really get down to it, they all pay in one form or another since they pay in copies. In my experience, Weber pays over $100 for a story, but I don’t really think it’s all that much better than the Briar Cliff Review, which is a beautiful journal and well edited, just has a much smaller budget. If you’re doing ‘literary fiction’ it’s wise not to turn up your nose at non-payers as many of the markets exist on arts council grants, and NPR-like funding to keep them going. The material they publish depends more on the editor than what they pay, in my opinion. A lot of them pay “token amounts.” I’ve gotten $10 before into a Paypal account. That’s no different than getting copies.

D: I agree with [B] and [C]: Your friend is probably starting out, or really uninformed. Wish her good luck with only publishing in paying markets. And that’s my take on that: good luck.

END

37: “Just Following Orders”

“Belief in an omnipotent omniscient creator of the world does not in itself have any moral implications — it’s still up to you to decide whether it is right to obey His commands. … The young men who flew airplanes into buildings in the US … were not just stupid in imagining that these were God’s commands; even thinking that there were His commands, they were evil in obeying them.” –Steven Weinberg in New York Review of Books, September 25, 2008, p.76

Weinberg’s is a curious argument. On what basis, in accordance with what ethical theory, are people ‘evil’? No, I don’t have an answer to that question; I don’t believe there is a coherent answer. Ascriptions of evil, at bottom, may be no more than gut feelings, or the teachings of power, or ‘what everybody knows’, or the wish to avoid pain or death, or based on some value system that is itself arbitrary, such as the absolutely supreme value of every human (and only human) life.

END

36: Scoring Markets for Fiction Submissions

Here’s a very simple market-scoring formula that short-story writers can use:

There are four variables, each scored “A” or “B”. The highest-scoring markets would therefore score AAAA. Other useful variables, such as circulation, speed of yes/no decision, source of funding, institutional affiliation, how long established, frequency of publication, rights retained by authors, etc., are inconvenient to obtain or, in some cases, hard to believe. The four selected variables are easily pulled from Duotrope.com listings and the markets’ web sites.

The variables are not weighted against each other. Each writer may consider some variables more important than others. I find it a real nuisance, for example, to submit by USPS rather than by email attachment.

First variable: Publication medium

A = All-print, or print + electronic (e.g., monthly posting + annual print anthology)

B = Electronic only

Second variable: Submission method

A = Electronic permitted

B = Postal only

Third variable: Paying market or not

A = Pays for at least some fiction in real money.

B = Never pays writers of fiction in real money.

Fourth variable: Name

This variable has one objective, and one subjective, component.

A = The market has a ‘name’ in the business, e.g., has placed stories in Pushcart, BASS, Year’s Best SF, or other worthy reprint anthology.

A = The market has a name you would be pleased to cite in your cover letter. For me, something called “Telegraph Hill Review” would get an A, “Gore on the Floor Monthly”, a B. You may, however, have exactly the opposite valuation.

B = Neither of the above.

Some promising variables were considered but not used:

(a) (Concerning original stories, not reprints:) One-shot anthology v anthology-series v periodical magazine. It’s not clear to what extent acceptance by each medium is more, or less, favorable to a writer. The big disadvantage of the one-shot anthology is that, five years from now, no one will remember it and your writing credit will not carry much weight, compared with being published in a monthly or quarterly that’s still in business. Of course, the magazine might fold, leaving you be in the same situation. On balance, the anthology series looks like the best place to be; but you never know how long the series will last.

(b) Simultaneous submissions. Some publications forbid this practice, some say OK, some are silent. When they are silent, Duotrope marks these as “no simsubs”, while Writers Digest says “simsubs OK”. Based on discussion in a fiction workshop I attended recently, I tend to ignore prohibitions against simsubs. But if market ‘A’ accepts a piece, you should promptly withdraw it from all other markets where you’ve sent it. TIP: Withdrawals are ignored by many markets, or never quite catch up with your submission. Be sure to save a copy of your withdrawal email, just in case there’s a dispute later.

END

35: What’s Wrong with Pro-Life; What’s Wrong with Pro-Choice

Pro-choicers assert that every woman has a right to bear as many, or as few, children as she wishes. If pregnant, the abortion v giving-birth decision is hers alone, never mind the wishes of the father. I’ll agree that the father has no right to insist that a woman carry to term. And I’ll agree that every woman has a right to an abortion. But I don’t agree that a woman has the moral (never mind legal) right to have as many children as she chooses. Why should society condone irresponsible breeding? Even if a woman is wealthy, having many children imposes burdens on every generation after her, overwhelming the earth with people we really don’t need, and the sheer overwhelming numbers of whom are ruining our world. The conundrum is: who will enforce population control? The Chinese experiment has had many problems. And would we trust our own government as the Chinese trust theirs? I don’t think so.

Pro-lifers are flying under false colors. While caring deeply for every human fetus from conception onward (including severely mentally handicapped fetuses whom it is cruel and insensitive to bring into the world), they ignore any right to life other species may have — species who are also God’s children, and who are, as well, innocent of the burden of sin that human beings bear. “Pro-life” should really be called “pro-only-human-life, screw everyone else”.

END

33: Offense — Giving and Taking

Excerpts from Deborah Howell’s column in the Washington Post, September 28, 2008, page B6:

“More than 750 readers from around the country told me they were mightily offended [by an editorial cartoon making fun of John McCain and Sarah Palin]. Many were Pentecostals. Complaints also came from mainline Christians and from a Buddhist who said “it offends me.” McCain and Palin are certainly fair game, but most of those offended by the cartoon felt it mocked all Pentecostals.”

We need to be firm about this: no one can legitimately claim to ‘be offended’, or accused of ‘giving offense’; rather, offense is something we do to ourselves, and it’s usually harmful to do so, both to us ** and to everyone else involved. Taking offense does not solve problems: it adds to them, leaving a residue of hate and resentment.

** This is a good time to recall Spinoza’s discussion of the harmfulness of negative emotions.

END

32: Waiting for Moderation

from an interactive news website:

“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”

I know what that means, but it’s still an odd thing to say; as if my comment realizes it is immoderate and is patiently waiting to be nuanced, or watered down, or surrounded with ‘perhapses’, or ‘other things being equals’, or ‘that having been saids’.

END