Every now and then, I ask our readers for questions or suggestions for future editorials. Some concepts don’t warrant a full column on their own, but can turn into something when bundled together. This month, we have four:
What are the main differences between the submissions you got in the first year of Clarkesworld and the submissions you are getting this year? (excluding AI annoyance) —Rodrigo Pontes
There are so many things that have changed. Nineteen years ago, online fiction was still on the outside of the mainstream genre short fiction community and we were just the latest magazine (of many) to launch there. If I recall correctly, we received less than 300 submissions the first month and, as per our guidelines, all of them were between 1000 and 4000 words in l…
Every now and then, I ask our readers for questions or suggestions for future editorials. Some concepts don’t warrant a full column on their own, but can turn into something when bundled together. This month, we have four:
What are the main differences between the submissions you got in the first year of Clarkesworld and the submissions you are getting this year? (excluding AI annoyance) —Rodrigo Pontes
There are so many things that have changed. Nineteen years ago, online fiction was still on the outside of the mainstream genre short fiction community and we were just the latest magazine (of many) to launch there. If I recall correctly, we received less than 300 submissions the first month and, as per our guidelines, all of them were between 1000 and 4000 words in length. Even by 2008—the earliest data in our submission system—the monthly volume was only around 400.
Each time we increased the maximum word count limit, the submission pool changed. The first—from 4000 to 8000—was probably the most jarring. Previously, most authors had been editing stories down to fit our requirements. When that was no longer necessary, we noticed a drop in overall quality. We always knew that trimming could improve stories, but to see it in action and on scale, was something else. There were also positives introduced by these changes as well. Some stories just can’t be told in 4000 words and each expansion has allowed us to feature a broader range of stories and story-telling techniques.
One of the changes I am happiest with, though, was a cultivated one: the increase in international submissions. While we’ve always received some, over 90% of our submissions came from the US in our early days. Today, it hovers around 55-60%. However, this hasn’t been to the exclusion of US authors, as their numbers have grown too. The rest of the world is bigger, and authors from around the globe feel more welcome to submit their work here than in the past. We might not have created the problem that deterred them from submitting to US markets, but we’re happy to be undoing some of that damage. Our monthly submission volume is currently around 1250 and international authors represent a healthy amount of that growth.
What inspires you to select stories from a more global stage than other American editors? —S. Salvi
Growing up, if someone was curious about international science fiction, they were typically told that it was all terrible, so why bother? The few exceptions that got through, well, they were just that, the exceptions. Frankly, that always sounded ridiculous to me. Maybe being bullied as a kid made me sympathetic to another group that was just as easily dismissed, but that’s not exactly an uncommon life experience for science fiction fans my age. Whatever it was, I needed to see it for myself and I stubbornly clung to the idea that a great story could come from anywhere. Over time, experience told me that was true. Being a data junkie, I couldn’t help but notice our percentage of international submissions in the slush pile was lower than I’d hoped, so I engaged in efforts to encourage more authors to send us stories. Publishing some of those indicated that we were putting our money where our mouth was, which made the job easier. Ultimately, I’m searching for good stories and casting the widest net possible seems like the right idea to me.
I can’t speak for other editors, but if they haven’t put in that initial effort, simply put, it’s likely that they aren’t going to receive as many international submissions. Their specific growth curve would look very different. With translations, you also have a financial obstacle in that those stories cost more. You have to pay an author and a translator. With margins as tight as they are, that can also play a significant role. That said, I don’t know any editors who are opposed to publishing foreign authors and the numbers do seem to indicate that it’s happening more often, even if not as frequently as I do.
I should also add that there are regional differences in storytelling techniques. If an editor is more traditional in their expectations, they may have difficulty connecting with stories that deviate too far from their norm. Each editor is going to have a different level of tolerance for variations from the perceived center. I’m certain my experience has opened my eyes to a few things I might have been less open to in the past. We’re all learning and at different points in that journey.
I’d love to read your perspective on what it takes to keep an SFF magazine running for (going on) twenty years. —Morrish
Certainly, publishing stories people want to read would be at the top of the list, but that alone isn’t enough. You have to go where the readers are and remove the excuses that might otherwise get in the way of them reading those stories. That spans the entire range from design to delivery. For example, we have an audio edition because there’s a significant number of readers that only have the time to listen to fiction. We have a print edition because some people prefer print. We have an online edition because not everyone can afford to subscribe. That last one does cause problems for us—because there are people who could afford to, but won’t—but sometimes you have to think about the bigger picture. Online fiction helps grow the reading community and serves the authors well.
Ultimately, you need to be flexible, adaptable, and willing to experiment. Push at the edges and see where you can take things. Believe in what you are doing and have the confidence to see it through, but not so much that it blinds you to the mistakes you will inevitably make. And when you do make mistakes, learn from them, apologize when necessary, and adjust accordingly. There will always be critics. Take them with a big grain of salt. They are not the only voices in the room.
Don’t forget that this is a business. Even if you don’t see yourself doing this professionally, you have a responsibility to those around you: staff, authors, translators, artists, readers, and even the field as a whole.
I’m also a fan of transparency. I think people appreciate that.
What is the future of lit mags? What will the next evolution of the medium be? —JP Spalding
I don’t see any signs of a new medium coming down the line in the near future. The recent period spanning the arrival of online publishing, podcasting, ebooks, and apps has been historically unusual and somewhat disruptive. Disruptions don’t have to be negative, but they do result in a period of instability and adjustment. Even now, I believe the field is still learning how to navigate and best utilize these developments. Until they do, we’ll probably continue to observe the instability that we take for granted now.
The field’s biggest problem is an old one: distribution. Print distributors for magazines have been declining for years and the entire system around it is very broken and wasteful. The rise of digital publishing helped fill in some of the financial losses those publications experienced in print, but it did not solve their problems. Amazon’s unexpected cancellation of their digital subscription program demonstrated perfectly just how fragile this space has been. The harm done across the industry was substantial and many magazines are still recovering from those losses. Even years later, nothing has even partially filled the void left by Amazon’s departure.
Meanwhile, digital distribution for magazines into the library trade is limited to only a few options, the largest of which outsourced to Zinio, a company that builds print replica editions of magazines from PDFs rather than using the EPUB format that the readers of literary magazines typically prefer. The cost of this conversion is often an obstacle for many small to medium-sized magazines. Since Zinio controls the door, their preferred format for subscriptions is the only one available to Overdrive libraries. Others suffer similarly.
When digital distribution does exist, it is often limited by processes in place from the older print era that make no sense in these mediums. While online publishing allows instant access to a publication anywhere in the world, commercial distribution systems actively resist serving a global audience. Many can’t even deliver an EPUB file to a reader’s device, introducing technical hurdles that prevent many from subscribing. Convenience does matter.
I’ve made a point of emphasizing direct subscriptions in the past and, while that remains important, it does often come with the limitations of the tools and resources available to us. We cannot do this alone. Bookstores and libraries are an essential part of the reading community and without distribution into those channels, many magazines will struggle to reach their audiences and earn a living.
Thanks to the above readers for their suggestions! If you’d like to participate in a future installment, email me your questions/suggestions at neil@clarkesworldmagazine.com.
Author profile
Neil Clarke
Neil Clarke is the editor of Clarkesworld Magazine, Forever Magazine, and several anthologies, including the Best Science Fiction of the Year series. He is a four-time winner of the Hugo Award for Best Editor Short Form, two-time winner of the Locus Award for Best Editor, a four-time winner of the Chesley Award for Best Art Director, and a recipient of the Kate Wilhelm Solstice Award. He currently lives in NJ with his wife and two sons.