That list triggered me. I need a lie down. Who does that? How does they does that? Thank goodness. The choice phrase in there seems to be rely on. This is a good rule. You can have a twist, but don't rely on the twist to retrospectively make the rest of the story work. We have to enjoy the reading of it, not just the recollecting of it. If you need it explained to you, you're the problem. Amazing how some people still haven't grasped that we are building a better world by habitually excluding white hetrosexual males from whatever it is those pigs are being excluded from today. Its not complicated. Actually the white bit reminds me of an especially institutionally brain-dead organisation in my home town (in Britain). They're so right on, and so infatuated with American social politics, that they set up a super inclusive community group for deciding policies which was strictly for BIPOCs only. OK great, great, lets see, so that's black, indigenous, people of--- wait, indigenous... In England... So that's Celts? We have to let the Welsh in now? There goes the neighbourhood. It definitely wasn't the sane thing.
For one, there's a very powerful story called What They Carried, which is essentially a list of items carried by soldiers into combat. It starts as simply a list, and basically remains that, but the items start to evoke strong emotional resonance. Things like crucifixes and pictures of loved ones and children etc. The author manages to convey emotion excellently in the format of a list. There have been many attempts to replicate this lightning in a bottle. Most fizzled dismally.
Most items on this list make perfect sense, like prohibiting anyone in a guitar shop from playing Smoke on the Water, Stairway, or Iron Man for the umpteen-thousandth time.
I mean, I'm really sorry, I don't mean to be a "problem". I just don't understand. Sorry if I offended you or anyone else here. But this sort of tone won't help me understand either.
some mag/journal issues are BIPOConly issues. sometimes there is a certain submission window only open to BIPOC or [insert marginalized community] writers. its not excluding heteromales from submitting to the publication in general. in most cases, there are 2 submission windows so that marginalized voices get to be heard too (in cases where you get a high submission rate of heter males, it makes sense that the vast majority of what is published is by HM.... so reading words specifically by marginalized/BIPOC authors is a must). sometimes a publication will just be wanting to highlight, uplift, or promote marginalized/BIPOC voices and commit an entire issue to them/us. which hurt when @Not the Territory said that such restrictions would make them not read it. I'm featured in 2 black speculative/horror publications (one magazine of which is a finalist for the Small Press Publisher Award). does that make you not want to read what I've written because you are not black(and were therefore excluded from submitting)?
Maybe. Where I've seen it, the list was written with humour, even if a little acidic. But close enough to make a point? You've got to give me that. More seriously, there is a risk that we're all leaping towards sub-categorising ourselves, each separate from the other. Oh, you're gay. Your interests are on this shelf, just down from the urban horror and across from the BIPOC periodicals. Must look out for that one. As it happens, the story I voted for in the current flash comp is something I'd have described as following a list until I realised that was a bad thing. It's still a ripping good yarn, so maybe worth checking out for those that haven't. Stop that. He's kidding, I'm pretty sure.
I'm assuming, if they're based in the US, they get around the equal opportunity employment act of 1972 by saying the writers aren't employees, but freelancers? Because it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or religion when it comes to hiring and promotion, as it should be. Though maybe it's OK if it's just temporary discrimination. Though I guess it's different if it's a niche publication aimed at only a certain demographic, or a temporary discrimination.
Just a joke. You are not the problem. There's no problem. Saying people are the problem when they haven't heard of something has become a cliche, hence riffing on it. I appreciate on the Internet no-one can see you waggling your eyebrows to indicate something is not to be taken at face value, so I'm sorry.
Oh, okay. Thank you. That helps. I'm not familiar with the publishing industry at all so I became puzzled quickly. I'm in no way against people being heard and being included in the world of stories, no matter their identity. Hopefully what I said didn't come across like that. He is? If so, I genuinely didn't pick that up. Well, this is why I don't like being in discussions. My autism really doesn't help me in that regard at all. Discussions are hard for me. It's probably better to stick with the workshop and the contests. This whole experience was a shock I didn't need today. It's probably just me honestly. I have autism. Autistic people struggle with understanding the intent of others. Hopefully I didn't ruin the thread. You all can go on without me.
I am genuinely sorry. Its dicey taking a serious subject, such as representation in publishing, and using it to go off on a tangent taking the mick out of a certain kind of over-excited Internet speak that you see on Twitter etc, that sometimes goes with it those conversations. For the avoidance of doubt, because people with autism feeling comfortable in sensible threads about publishing is more important than my cheap gags: There are all kinds of publishers who are set up to publish stories from different demographics of people. For example in my home town there is a publisher who will only publish if you are resident to the area, working class and not a Tory. I don't think many people here would object to specialist publishers wanting to publish more of one kind of person, be they Asian, gay or of any other group. However sometimes some people object to or do not really understand the purpose of some of these restrictions (the not a Tory thing might raise some eyebrows). Then a certain sort of person on Twitter/etc may pop up and say that the person who doesn't understand the need for those restrictions is the reason the restrictions are needed. The last two parts of this is just Internet trash talk and I was just parodying it. Please do stay and discuss. I'll bugger off instead. Its bed time anyway.
If a publisher wants to only publish from a specific segment of writers, that is their business and I suspect their business will suffer for that decision. That isn't to say there aren't good writers in all segments of society. It is just all the good writers they are missing out on.
Your feeling is entirely justified and rational. Important to clarify, though: whatever my skin colour or gender or sexuality may be, I wont play ball with that kind of selective publishing. Doesn't matter if I fit the mold of that magazine or not, whether I'm sub-Saharan or olive or albino. It's not that I think that publisher discretion is immoral. I just don't think those are anywhere near the most distinguishing traits of a person. Sexuality, gender, colour: our meatware upstairs is basically the same IMO. Clive Barker writes amazing horror, but that's not because he's gay. Murakami's magical realism isn't so striking because he's Japanese, it's because he's freaking Murakami. Michael Crichton's sci-fi thrillers aren't so compelling because he's a (dead) white hetero man. You know, thinking about it, I bet there are more Stephen King stories featuring homoeroticism than Barker's. Just a guess, not sure. I'm just never going to fixate on that. There will also always be a group that isn't getting published or read 'enough.' Once I meet my quota for black American authors, I'm going to be severely under-reading Indigenous Australians, South Koreans, Brazilians, Russians etc... If I'm interested in reading a black person's work about how he was treated in XYZ town at XYZ time, then I'll topically seek that out. However, I'm not going to hunt down a fantasy story just because a Chinese lesbian wrote it (Or prioritize the Chinese lesbian magazine, where I could be missing out on other stories from a broader pool that also contains Chinese and lesbians).
I did consider omitting, ah, that one particular item I included in the list and popping that into the debate room instead, but to be honest, I think that is actually the most common thing I come across when reviewing publishers' submission guidelines. It's worth mentioning as it's so common. I need to start jumping to that section of their guidelines at the start, because it's been a bit disheartening to peruse a site, do a little research, start thinking that they're a perfect fit for one of my stories, and then learning that they don't want to even see anything I've written on account of my being born this way and under these circumstances. I know they don't actually frame it that way. They say, "We are accepting submissions from X, Y, Z," which always means, "Everyone but people like me." I know that's supposed to mean inclusion, and I get it, but when it's always just people like me, well, it does feel very much like exclusion. I find it strange to be pushed into an extremely large group of very diverse individuals and told that no one needs to read anything I've written because who I am apparently means that I am part of this group that is overrepresented. Someone's sex, gender, and colour of their skin is a very broad (and frankly, simplistic and unsettling) way of determining whether their stories are worthy of an audience. Regarding Canadian content, yeah, there's actually legislation in place that enforces a quota. It's mostly in place to ensure that Canada maintains its own cultural identity, separate from the US, from which we are inundated with books, shows, movies, etc. It's a nice way of giving Canadian creators a chance in the face of unstoppable, well-funded American content. No, that's not the same thing as that item in the list. Legally you cannot discriminate for job hiring this way in Canada, though there are some "emergency" provisions where such a thing may be approved (though of course it's only ever going one way, not the other). But publishing seems to be different. Probably because the writers aren't employees. Anyway, I wanted to try and shift focus back to what things other people are seeing in publishers' DO NOT WANT lists. I write plenty of stories that plenty of publishers explicitly do not want. "Simultaneous submissions" was a good one mentioned earlier. As if I am only going to send a story to one magazine that has an average response time of 120 days because that's what they requested! When they reject 99% of stuff. Very amusing. What else do they not want ?
I'll just make one further comment on the issue discussed above. Absolutely, publishing bodies can and should support involvement from marginalised and under-represented groups within society. I've no difficulty when that leads to a call out exclusive to those groups because, sometimes, that's the most effective way of broadening the scope to have unheard voices given a chance. Programmes that bring creative writing into marginalised communities deserve plaudits and support. I do think, though, that there can be a risk that these efforts not only target marginalised groups as authors but also for readership. Within that, I'd suggest, there is a risk that the effort could actually prove counter-productive to its stated objective. Rather than expanding the range of voices heard, there's a possibility that it creates bubbles within which designated authors and their readers are potentially confined. Having identified as an author with whichever specific identity, I imagine that presents opportunities to sign on for relevant newsletters/notifications/publications specific to that identity, to which those of other identifiers are not included. Sure they can be discovered, but it's not the same as being included as member of the group. Maybe that's not how it happens, but I know I have signed up for newsletters from magazines that stoked my interest. As a final note, I'd add that I don't typically look out for biographical details on authors I read, unless the lived experience is central to the writing. Usually the short bio attached to the book/story is more than sufficient. The writing will stand or fail on its own merits.
I hope you don't leave. Speaking as (also) an author on the high-performing end of the autism spectrum, I know exactly how you feel. For autistic people, it's difficult enough sometimes to "read" people's intent in real life, never mind on a forum. This is why, when I'm kidding, I add a little "emoticon" at the end of a sentence, just to show that I'm kidding. As for that list ... I agree completely, but I have three questions: So, in order of those points: 1. No problem about teenage vampires/werewolves, but I hope publishers have no problem about teenage protagonists? After all, if I aim my work at the teenage market, the protagonist should be a teenager. 2. "No talking animals"? Fine. What about talking vampires/werewolves? (I know - only if the genre is fantasy, and only if it makes sense to have a vampire/werewolf in the first place -- e.g. if the setting is 9th-century Scandinavia, where stories of werewolves were widespread) 3. "No stories written by heterosexual, white males"? Er ... pardon me, but what do people's skin pigmentation or sexual preference have to do with their writing prowess (or otherwise)? I'm genuinely confused.
1. Yeah, of course MG and YA are still massive markets. 2. I like stories with talking animals. One that comes to mind is *Tailchaser's Song* by Tad Williams, which I enjoyed as a kid. 3. It's not all about the quality of the stories. It's a business, and there's a market, and trends. And right now this is where many publishers are placing their bets. I should add one last thing to that bit - and this is including agent submissions, so, many hundreds in total - only three, or possibly four, explicitly said something like, "Please do not tell us about your X, Y, Z in your cover letter. We're only interested in your writing."
Which agent was that? If they specialise in anything but fantasy or horror, that's perfectly understandable.
Saw a "hard sell" list on a science fiction magazine. Among others, it included restrictions on using thou or thine, children playing in a field and discovering something, and funny stories that depend on or even include puns.
I'm having this problem wherein my story involves the ghost of a kid who was brutally effed up when hit by a car. Nothing happens to him during the story, but the accident is vaguely alluded to, and his description is a little gruesome. I'm worried no one will consider it because of the kid thing, which is listed as a no-no even on horror publication sites. I'm certainly not going to tone down the description. That's part of the scary, but I may have trouble finding a home for the piece.
I don't understand this restriction. Is it because they want to publish their stories to a wider audience that may include children? Bad shit happens to everyone, excluding children from that in most fiction will just paint a milquetoast publishing industry. Sure if you write excellently, you could probably get away with using zombie children vampires, but for the rest of us, it just puts up creative limits. I wonder if Lord of the Flies would have ever been published in today's climate?
And Treasure Island, Salem's Lot, The Body (aka Stand By Me), Jane Eyre, and many more of the classics of literature. Hopefully this is just a few publications and not the majority of them.
