Shred update
2007-11-13 | Filed under Editing, Shred of Evidence |
In a couple days I’ll have a more complete update posted on the Shred website, but in the meantime:
I’ve read all subs received through Sunday, and have sent out a bunch of responses. I’m going to (hopefully) have all responses out by Friday, which will put the response rates between “a matter of days” and “a shade under three months.” I am satisfied with that (though I understand how the “a shade under three months” folks might feel less that pleased). Generally speaking I consider three months a good guideline for reasonable and prompt responses (whether I’m wearing the editor hat or the writer hat). If I have stories longer than that, I begin to feel like I am sitting on them and I feel bad. And, sometimes, overwhelmed, since I am rarely sitting on just one or two; I tend to respond, and often read, in clumps.
I typically don’t comment on rejected submissions. I know some writers hate that, some love it, and some don’t care. (I’m in the “don’t care” camp, myself.) Some editors comment (or don’t) for philosophical reasons, or as a mind hack, not wanting an encouraging-sounding rejection to lead to a series of undesired rewrites. For me it’s one part philosophy and ninety-nine parts time.
The philosophy’s easy. I don’t ask for rewrites (as opposed to the occasional minor tweak), and since I’m not asking for rewrites offering extended comments seems kind of pointless. Shred pays ten bucks. That doesn’t cover the writer’s initial effort, much less subsequent changes. There are a limit to the number of hoops I want to ask folks to jump through for low pay, especially since a) it’s not like I’m the Big Time Editor they should hearken to for advice, b) chances are that a near-miss for me will work well for another editor, and c) there are plenty of stories I like as-is.
Reason c feeds into the scheduling issue. I take forever to write comments. Essentially, they fall into one of two categories: the quick, vague, and essentially useless, focusing on one thing I could easily identify as problematic; or they’re full critiques. The full critiques might be useful—especially if I practiced writing them and generally honed my crit-fu—but then again, maybe not. A lot of the time, “it just doesn’t work for me” is probably the most honest and useful critique anyway. So instead of offering writers feedback they may or may not want, which they may or may not find useful, and which I definitely won’t enjoy writing, I’ve opted for short, undifferentiated, and generally faster rejections. (It’s working for me. And it seems to be working—or not not working—for a number of authors.)
I am really enjoying using WordPress for the webzine. Being able to schedule posts takes an enormous weight off my shoulders (or feels like it does, at any rate). The added flexibility makes it feel like I have less on my plate. I think the one-a-week format is working pretty well…though there is part of me that misses having issues. At some point in the nearish future, I must come up with a reader survey to see what folks like and don’t like. In the meantime, feel free to weigh in here.
Comments
4 Responses to “Shred update”
Leave a Reply
You can always use Wordpress’s Pages feature to do issues. In fact I think it’s a natural fit, since you can compose but not publish the TOC page, then make it the front page for your site. But maybe that’s just me.
I like the weekly format. It attracts people to the site on a regular basis. You can always do issues as specials if you like. Whatever you decide, I’d read it.
On rejection, the way I see it, when I submit a story, I’m voluntarily subjecting it to the particular editor’s likes/dislikes, feedback style, etc. At Thrilling Detective, I give brief feedback as to what I didn’t like, what I would have liked to have seen, mostly to know for myself. I’m not sure it serves another purpose. When the writer submits the story elsewhere, my take doesn’t matter, the new editor’s does.
I do want to change the layout to something a little less bloggy, but I don’t know when I’ll get around to it. Making more complete use of pages heads the list of changes.
My debate of “to issue or not to issue” is less a matter of layout and more a question of frequency of publication. I’m inclined to think sticky is better on the web, though I don’t have specific Shred 1.0 stats to back that up.
Tracking your own preferences is a definite benefit to giving feedback. Any time I write something down it becomes more real, in some ways, and honing taste is never a bad thing.
I’ve been thinking about what other purpose feedback might serve. As I articulate why I didn’t accept stories, the writers get to see why as well, and this helps the next time they submit to Thrilling Detective.
Feedback might not be helpful from markets that accept a wider range of stories, where what an editor likes in one story she may not like in another; however, because Thrilling only accepts P.I. stories and all P.I. stories have to hit certain notes to be called P.I. stories, feedback works for us.